New aerial photos of 9/11 released

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by hooper

 

Then you need to post that photograph, not just talk about it...

And then add your scientific evaluation of the fire please. Explain why you think it's not cooling, and why you think it had enough thermal energy to transfer enough heat to cause all the steel to fail. Can you explain how thermal energy is transferred between objects?

Figure 6-36, page 127 shows the temperature distribution on the 94th floor of WTC 1, 15 minutes after the impact. The side where the plane had impacted experienced temperatures over 1000C, well within the range of causing the structural integrity of the steel to deteriorate (which according to MIT materials engineer Thomas Eagar, is at or above 650c)

NIST report on the WTC collapse

The NIST report is as scientific an evaluation as a scientific evaluation gets. Please explain why the NIST engineers have it wrong and you have it right.

Those pictures, like all the others, should make it patently obvious that (as conspiracy theorists imply) no explosives would have been necessary for building collapse.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Those pictures, like all the others, should make it patently obvious that (as conspiracy theorists imply) no explosives would have been necessary for building collapse.

Er, quite the opposite reaction for myself thats for sure.

Sure the top of north tower was burning real bad, but the rest looked nicely intact to me. Not saying it wasn't on fire, just that it wasn't a RAGING INFERNO that could cause melting to a degree of free fall speed.

Originally posted by hooper
Dear God. What are you not following here???????? The OP posted 8 newly released photos from NYC on 9/11 that were taken by the NYPD. I first refered to photo No. 2 in the link. Try and keep up.

Wow what a mature and educated response. How old are you? I really like to know how you're coming to your conclusions, I'm seriously interested.

Please post what you call pic No.2 because I see no fire, you also fail to answer my questions, why is that? Your words about the pic are more important to me than the pic itself, because as I said our evaluation of said pic will not match. You fail to explain your reasoning, you are the one failing to follow, you just make meaningless statements. Show me the pic you are talking about, and explain your claim, how hard is that?

(If you reply to me with more nonsense you will just be proving my point, so if you want to prove me wrong then do as I suggest I'll gladly debate you on it anyway, anyhow, anywhere...)

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Wrong, air fire temperatures do not equate to the temperature of the steel.

This is why I keep asking you guys to explain thermal energy transfer, because it's obvious you don't understand it...

But having said that it would require all the steel to fail to create a global symmetrical collapse, not just some of it, as I've explained and I know you've already read, so I won't repeat it again.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by hooper
Dear God. What are you not following here???????? The OP posted 8 newly released photos from NYC on 9/11 that were taken by the NYPD. I first refered to photo No. 2 in the link. Try and keep up.

Wow what a mature and educated response. How old are you? I really like to know how you're coming to your conclusions, I'm seriously interested.

Please post what you call pic No.2 because I see no fire, you also fail to answer my questions, why is that? Your words about the pic are more important to me than the pic itself, because as I said our evaluation of said pic will not match. You fail to explain your reasoning, you are the one failing to follow, you just make meaningless statements. Show me the pic you are talking about, and explain your claim, how hard is that?

(If you reply to me with more nonsense you will just be proving my point, so if you want to prove me wrong then do as I suggest I'll gladly debate you on it anyway, anyhow, anywhere...)

You see no fire in picture 2 linked in the OP ? Are you serious ?

reply to post by Alfie1


OMG, are you serious??

Here is pic number 2 from my op for all the ignoramous posters here in this thread.





clearly there is fire.... NEXT!!

reply to post by scubagravy


Thank you. I really didn't know what else to do. Much appreciated.

Look at the last picture. Certainly nuclear.

Originally posted by ANOK

Wrong, air fire temperatures do not equate to the temperature of the steel.

Would you mind terribly explaining how the air temperature would ever be hotter than the fire that's heating the air? It isn't the air, after all, that heated the steel, it was the fires.

This is why I keep asking you guys to explain thermal energy transfer, because it's obvious you don't understand it...

That's not it. We just know you're trying to detour the discussion into strawman arguments over complex physics specifically becuase you're hoping to prove us wrong on topics that have nothing to do with the original argument. Allow me to bring you back on track.

Heat transfer refers to how thermal energy is transferred from locations with higher temperatures into locations with lower temperatures. When an object is of a lower temperature than its surroundings, the object and its surroundings attempt to reach thermal equilibrium. You're attempting to derail the discussion by demanding we show via the physics of heat transfer that steel exposed to 1000c plus temperatures would be heated to the point of structural failure, which by the very nature of thermal energy transfer is bad logic. It is YOUR obligation to show via the physics of heat transfer that steel exposed to 1000c plus temperatures could NOT be heated to to the point of structural failure. You can start with disproving the statement that structural steel loses 50% of its structural integrity at approx 600c-650c (as per MIT materials engineer Thomas Eagar).

Are you able to do this?

Originally posted by Alfie1
You see no fire in picture 2 linked in the OP ? Are you serious ?

I do not know what you mean by picture 2, please post the pic.

How hard is that?

But regardless you are again ignoring the point of my thread. Do you even bother reading the whole thing? Did you miss the part where I said just looking at your pic is not going to do you any good? You keep being very vague in your replies, even though I left the door wide open for you to prove me wrong and make me look stupid. Are you not smart enough to realize this or are just lying about this pic? If you don't take advantage of my offer then I'm done with you.

Are you really here to debate, or just troll? (please don't answer this rhetorical question and focus on the POINT, IF you can).

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Would you mind terribly explaining how the air temperature would ever be hotter than the fire that's heating the air? It isn't the air, after all, that heated the steel, it was the fires.

Not at all. No the AIR would not be hotter than the fires, and neither would the steel. That is not what I said. The temperature you gave me was for the ambient air temperature of the fire, that is how they measure it.

You can start with disproving the statement that structural steel loses 50% of its structural integrity at approx 600c-650c (as per MIT materials engineer Thomas Eagar).

That is an irrelevant statement that means nothing by itself.

Again, you have to explain how in an hour of carbon based fires could transfer enough thermal energy to thousands of tons of steel to cause global failure. There was not enough fire to even cause the steel to lose 50% of it's strength. And again I explained this already, if the buildings were designed to hold 2x their weight then losing half it's strength puts it just at the safety margin, not way beyond it to cause global failure, and 2x is a low figure it was more but I forget the exact figure.

How did all that steel not directly in the fire get heated up? You say yourself it was direct fire, not heat transferred through air, that caused the steel to lose it's strength. Not much of the steel had direct contact with fire, and what did, again as I already explained, would be wicked along it's length thus cooling the heated spots until all the steel reaches equilibrium.

Try getting a steel pin to heat up enough to bend with a bic lighter, or a candle, as they both burn hotter than jet fuel and carbon based fires.

(And before you come back arguing this, go check out a real physics website on fire science not a 9-11 website. I'm not interested in people with agendas just unbiased facts).

[edit on 2/10/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by FermiFlux

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Those pictures, like all the others, should make it patently obvious that (as conspiracy theorists imply) no explosives would have been necessary for building collapse.

Er, quite the opposite reaction for myself thats for sure.

Sure the top of north tower was burning real bad, but the rest looked nicely intact to me. Not saying it wasn't on fire, just that it wasn't a RAGING INFERNO that could cause melting to a degree of free fall speed.

If that doesn't qualify as a raging inferno I'm sure what else would. With that sustained and heavily fueled fire plus the wreck damage, systemic failure would be absolutely inevitable

The reason they released the pictures is so that they can have more people like u joining the bandwagoon on the fake war on terror

Oh remember that steeled building in south America? it got fire but didn't fall

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
If that doesn't qualify as a raging inferno I'm sure what else would. With that sustained and heavily fueled fire plus the wreck damage, systemic failure would be absolutely inevitable

And you base this statement on what exactly? Just a hunch, an assumption?

Where is the precedence and physics you base this claim on. If there isn't one then what is it you base this on, the claims of the government? An appeal to authority?

I still want to see a genuine scientific explanation of the principles of the claim from you guys. And not a link from a 9-11 website. If what you all claim is possible, and you really understand it, then you should be able to clearly explain it with resources to back you up (and I don't mean other peoples claims, however experienced they claim to be).

If you can't do this then you have no credibility, you're just the mouthpiece for someone else's claim.

reply to post by ANOK

There was not enough fire

Says who? You? Sounds like a hunch or assumption to me.

And again I explained this already, if the buildings were designed to hold 2x their weight

Where are you getting this 200% safety factor from? And tell me how it applies in this case. When engineers design for a safety factor, of say 150% it assumes the basic structure is intact, not damaged. Like when they are calculating the lifting capacity of a crane. The proposed load is say, 10,000lbs. or 5 tons. They check to make sure that the crane capacity, pick point, rigging, cables, lift eyes, etc. could hold at least 15,000lbs. That means if they go to make the lift and the actual weight is 12000 lbs then everything is going to be alright. That does not mean that you can go up to the boom and cut through half the lattice work and still lift the load. Same thing with loadings in buildings. They design for all the possibble loading scenarios, live load, dead load, wind loads, etc. But damage the members chaotically and all that is moot.

Based on a reading of your psuedo engineering and science you think because the building had a design safety factor of 200% you could take out 100% of the structural elements and still keep the building standing.

Originally posted by ANOK
If you can't do this then you have no credibility, you're just the mouthpiece for someone else's claim.

I only speak for myself therefore I cannot be a mouthpiece for anyone else's claim.

If you have alternate beliefs about what happened that day the burden is on you to present facts which support it. It's not up to me to provide you with scientific data that nullifies your beliefs or to establish my credibility.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I only speak for myself therefore I cannot be a mouthpiece for anyone else's claim.

If all you do is repeat what someone else has said, without your own explanation then you are just a mouthpiece for someone else's words, not your own. I gave you the chance to show me you know what you are talking about, but you reply with this instead...

If you have alternate beliefs about what happened that day the burden is on you to present facts which support it. It's not up to me to provide you with scientific data that nullifies your beliefs or to establish my credibility.

No, you made a claim then you need to support your claim. I need to know that the person I'm debating knows what they're saying, and not just repeating something someone else said that they only think is correct because they blindly support what they're told by an authority.

Your answer is just a cop-out and proves my point about debunkers, you can parrot what you read but when challenged to explain it you can't...

Originally posted by hooper
Says who? You? Sounds like a hunch or assumption to me.

I have plenty of precedence to make my claim, there has been lots of steel building fires, and they acted the way we expected by known physics.
The towers and the pentacon didn't. We KNOW how hot fire burns, we KNOW how thermal energy is transferred. We KNOW how steel reacts to fire.
All these things are known and TESTABLE in a lab.

So no it's not an assumption. Believing the planes severed interior columns and fire got hot enough to cause global steel failure IS.

Where are you getting this 200% safety factor from?

If it's a 2x safety factor, the building is designed to hold twice it's own weight, or twice the load applied. Often the materials used exceed that but only indicate the figure required. If the building by code required a 2x margin, it could exceed that but they will only quote the 2x as that is the met requirement.

You really should learn these concepts before making uninformed replies.
That way we could go on with the debate instead of having to school you all the time...

www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

I don't know much about thermo dynamics or even controled demolitions.

What I do know is that because of the attacks we have very strict rules when trying to board a plane for fear of this happening again.

I have 1 question though.
Why did they change the laws for travelling by plane, but let people into sky scrapers with a box of matches if Fire is able to bring down a building?

I personally believe the pictures where released as a reminder why Iran has to be attacked, the subliminal warfare begun long ago, but has been on the rise slowly.