My beliefs have changed regarding 911

The problem with the molten metal is that no one has yet to confirm what sort of metal the molten stuff was. It could have been a number of metals, which have much lower melting points than steel. Aluminum, copper, ect.

So far, I've yet to hear the initial finds of molten metal to be confirmed as steel/iron

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


In the area where the molten metal was seen Fuji Bank had a large
battery room for its UPS (Uninteruptible Power Supply)

Possibibly is that it is lead from the battery bank....

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

 

In the area where the molten metal was seen Fuji Bank had a large
battery room for its UPS (Uninteruptible Power Supply)

Possibibly is that it is lead from the battery bank....

You still have a problem if it was lead, lead melts at 600F, where was that sort of temps coming from after the collapse? Surely you don't believe the fires were still active after the collapses? Even so average fire temps would be really low and not enough to sustain melted anything.

Anyway lead is silver like aluminium when molten, not bright red.

Do you check anything before you assume?

Originally posted by ANOK

You are saying the same thing I am

Almost.

, the nature of the objects (their respective mass) determines the damage,

My point is that these changes are minor when compared to the nature of the objects in question - 1 lb of steel vs 2 lbs of butter.

You know this. Just admit it.

speed increases mass

Stundied.

but the forces on both objects is still the same when they collide,

yep.

so the speed and increase in the mass will increase the forces on BOTH objects, not just the one that's moving or stationary.

yep.

Yes the speed after collision is what determines the damage, which is known as deceleration or backwards acceleration in physics. The greater mass will be effected less then the lower mass object and thus receive less damage.

minor effect. Refer to steel vs butter again for proof.

Joey quit trying to pretend you understand the physics, you are hurting your OS argument.

How so?

I know that you'll make the argument that the smaller upper part can't destroy the larger part. This is your reason for even going down this path.

However, realists realize that during the collapse, the lower part doesn't act as a single, block like unit. Us realists realize that the upper part destroys:

One

Floor

Pan

At

A

Time

Originally posted by AdmiralX

www.ae911truth.org...
Your source has money to gain from it

So explain all the papers from foreign countries.

Like China.....

I was keeping it simple.

And we all know why.

Cuz you, and AE twoof have zero engineering papers to show the world and set them on their collective ears.

reply to post by Joey Canoli

Joey,
You keep coming with nothing. Like Cool Hand Luke,
You are swinging, but the punches are empty.

Cuz you, and AE twoof have zero engineering papers to show the world and set them on their collective ears.

Nor does anyone in the world for either side of the case.

So now you know your opinion is just an opinion and not backed by fact, only theories.

reply to post by ANOK

You still have a problem if it was lead, lead melts at 600F, where was that sort of temps coming from after the collapse? Surely you don't believe the fires were still active after the collapses? Even so average fire temps would be really low and not enough to sustain melted anything.

You are kidding right? You are speaking about pools of molten metal and yet do not think there was still a fire burning somewhere?

Or are we onto a whole new super duper top secret nano atomic thermite? One that burns fast enough and hot enough to cut through I-beams, but continues to hold enough of its heat to keep steel molten for days afterwards with no additional help?


You have a huge pile of wrecked buildings, with fires in them, being fed a steady diet of oxygen from subway tunnels underneath, fuel from the buildings themselves and they are in relatively confined areas that will keep the temps high enough to melt things like aluminum and lead....and you wonder why there was molten metals....

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

 

In the area where the molten metal was seen Fuji Bank had a large
battery room for its UPS (Uninteruptible Power Supply)

Possibibly is that it is lead from the battery bank....

You still have a problem if it was lead, lead melts at 600F, where was that sort of temps coming from after the collapse? Surely you don't believe the fires were still active after the collapses? Even so average fire temps would be really low and not enough to sustain melted anything.

Anyway lead is silver like aluminium when molten, not bright red.

Do you check anything before you assume?

There is plenty of thermal imaging evidence that there were dozens of hot spots with temps in excess of 800 F for days after 9/11 :-

pubs.usgs.gov...

Originally posted by jprophet420

Cuz you, and AE twoof have zero engineering papers to show the world and set them on their collective ears.

Nor does anyone in the world for either side of the case.

So now you know your opinion is just an opinion and not backed by fact, only theories.

That's just a dumb statement.

The NIST report is the accepted one.

Therefore, any realist understands that there is zero need to write an engineering paper that sets the collective engineering world on its ear, that at the same time supports the NIST report.

Realists understand that any earth-shattering engineering papers MUST come from the TM. Fantasists like yourself believe that the JONES is legitimate. Delusional.

Would you like a list of these papers? Must they be posted again?

Or will you admit that your statement is denial?

reply to post by Joey Canoli

Govt says it is true so it is, right? Warren commission was honest about jfk aspiring, right? Epa was honest when they said 911 responders were safe, air was safe, right? News media spread those lies and others agreed, like doctors and engineers so it was all true? People agreed cigarettes are healthy. This was 'accepted.' Bp said air is safe in gulf, what wonderful truth these 'official sources deal.'

You and dis/mis info types lose. 911 was an inside job

Originally posted by Alfie1
There is plenty of thermal imaging evidence that there were dozens of hot spots with temps in excess of 800 F for days after 9/11 :-

pubs.usgs.gov...

Yes, and the point is why? The fires would not have survived the collapse, they would have been smothered by all the dust etc. Even if there were still fires they would have been small and relativity cool, not hot enough to melt even lead.

Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

Room fires do not get hot enough in an hour to maintain a temp of 800F (420C) for days after.

So if there were hot spots and molten lead then what was causing the hot spots?

Just pointing out the excuses for the molten lead/steel/whatever seen doesn't work, it's either a complete myth or something was going on we're unaware of.

From that same article that no one seems to bother reading this should help you understand heat transfer and how the steel could not have got hot enough to fail in an hour...

Temperatures of objects

It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.

www.doctorfire.com...

[edit on 6/20/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by AdmiralX

Govt says it is true so it is, right?

Nope.

Freely available evidence, and engineering papers from countries all over the globe says it is.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Cite these papers, then lets track their connections (whoever did the "papers").

Originally posted by AdmiralX
reply to post by Joey Canoli

 

Cite these papers, then lets track their connections (whoever did the "papers").

Go for it.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by 767doctor]

Originally posted by AdmiralX
reply to post by Joey Canoli

 

Cite these papers, then lets track their connections (whoever did the "papers").

I wish he would just just cite the papers, because he obviously doesn't understand them, and just takes anything that supports the OS at face value, to the point of comical misunderstandings...

The only reason all these OSers come here is because they can get away with their garbage due to ATS rules, anywhere else they get torn apart with ridicule...

Originally posted by ANOK

The only reason all these OSers come here is because they can get away with their garbage due to ATS rules, anywhere else they get torn apart with ridicule...

Specifically, how so?

I am interested to know how the ATS rules limit your arguments.

Originally posted by AdmiralX
reply to post by Joey Canoli

 

Cite these papers, then lets track their connections (whoever did the "papers").

I've had this discussion over and over again. There IS evidence that supports the OS theories. People that support the OS theories are not just a bunch of loonies just like the people who support the various demolition theories can support those theories with evidence. So now, again, for the 15'ths time or sow i'm going to copy and paste the sources of info that support the OS.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sources from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities Northwestern and Perdue.

reply to post by butcherguy


Actually, my opinon, if I may interject:

Originally posted by ANOK
...anywhere else they get torn apart with ridicule...

What ATS member 'ANOK' fails to mention is, at "Truther" forums, it is often really just a happy-happy-joy-joy place to go, so all the like-minded folk can comiserate together, and huff and puff at the big, bad, "evil" government.

They prefer to be uninterrupted with anything approaching dissent --- to include evidence, logic and reason.

Any posters who dare to buck the "party line" are not given the voice. They ARE, however, as 'ANOK' said, ridiculed...which consists of a gang-bang of sorts, with the spewing of the same WRONG information that is often seen here at ATS, with the fingers-in-ear mode fully engaged.

Continued attempts by the rational thinkers usually results in summary execution, eventually --- banning.

It is endemic to the types who flock to those sorts of sites...and merely tends to inculcate, incubate their continued ignorance.


[edit on 21 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by AdmiralX
reply to post by Joey Canoli

 

Cite these papers, then lets track their connections (whoever did the "papers").

I wish he would just just cite the papers, because he obviously doesn't understand them, and just takes anything that supports the OS at face value, to the point of comical misunderstandings...

The only reason all these OSers come here is because they can get away with their garbage due to ATS rules, anywhere else they get torn apart with ridicule...

hmmm You posted on this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Remember?

I'll copy and past it.

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions
Zdenk P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure
J. Engrg. Mech. 133, 308 (2007)

Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1
Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall
J. Perf. Constr. Fac. 21, 414 (2007)

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Mohammed R. Karim and Michelle S. Hoo Fatt
J. Engrg. Mech. 131, 1066 (2005)

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis
Zdeněk P. Bažant and Yong Zhou
J. Engrg. Mech. 128, 2 (2002)

Evaluation of an Existing Steel Frame Building against Progressive Collapse
Brian I. Song and Halil Sezen
341, 208 (2009)

Structural Design for Fire in Tall Buildings
Colin Gurley
Pract. Periodical on Struct. Des. and Constr. 13, 93 (2008)

Steel Connection Design for Structural Integrity
Ronald O. Hamburger, Kurt Gustafson, and Ned L. Cleland
Crossing Borders 314, 69 (2008)

Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-I
Ayhan Irfanoglu and Christoph M. Hoffmann
J. Perf. Constr. Fac. 22, 62 (2008)

Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple Analysis
K. A. Seffen
J. Engrg. Mech. 134, 125 (2008)

What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?
Zdeněk P. Bažant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, and David B. Benson
J. Engrg. Mech. 134, 892 (2008)

Lessons Learned from 9/11: The Report of the World Trade Center Building Code Task Force
Patricia J. Lancaster and James P. Colgate
171, 257 (2005)

Addendum to “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis”
Zdeněk P. Bažant and Yong Zhou
J. Engrg. Mech. 128, 369 (2002)

Use of High-Efficiency Energy Absorbing Device to Arrest Progressive Collapse of Tall Building
Qing Zhou and T. X. Yu
J. Engrg. Mech. 130, 1177 (2004)

Practical Means for Energy-Based Analyses of Disproportionate Collapse Potential
Donald O. Dusenberry and Ronald O. Hamburger
J. Perf. Constr. Fac. 20, 336 (2006)

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires
A. S. Usmani
J. Engrg. Mech. 131, 654 (2005)

Effect of Assembly Size, End Restraints, and Fireproofing Thickness on Fire Endurance Testing of Floor Systems
J. L. Gross
171, 47 (2005)

Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks
Yukihiro Omika, Eiji Fukuzawa, Norihide Koshika, Hiroshi Morikawa, and Ryusuke Fukuda
J. Struct. Engrg. 131, 6 (2005)

Progressive Analysis Procedure for Progressive Collapse
S. M. Marjanishvili
J. Perf. Constr. Fac. 18, 79 (2004)

Lessons Learned on Improving Resistance of Buildings to Terrorist Attacks
W. Gene Corley
J. Perf. Constr. Fac. 18, 68 (2004)

Analysis of the Thermal Exposure in the Impact Areas of the World Trade Center Terrorist Attacks
Craig Beyler, Derek White, Michelle Peatross, Javier Trellis, Sonny Li, Ari Luers, and Don Hopkins
241, 37 (2003)

Anatomy of a Disaster: A Structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapses
Najib Abboud, Matthys Levy, Darren Tennant, John Mould, Howard Levine, Stephanie King, Chukwuma Ekwueme, Anurag Jain, and Gary Hart
241, 36 (2003)

Dominant Factor in the Collapse of WTC-1
Konstantinos Miamis, Ayhan Irfanoglu, and Mete A. Sozen
J. Perf. Constr. Fac. 23, 203 (2009)

Closure to “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions”
Zdeněk P. Bažant and Jia-Liang Le
J. Engrg. Mech. 134, 917 (2008)

Fire and Concrete Structures
David N. Bilow and Mahmoud E. Kamara
Crossing Borders 314, 299 (2008)

Structural Response of Tall Buildings to Multiple Floor Fires
Graeme Flint, Asif Usmani, Susan Lamont, Barbara Lane, and Jose Torero
J. Struct. Engrg. 133, 1719 (2007)

as well as the sources I cited.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can can we stop acting like there is not ANY evidence at all that supports the os? The people who support the OS theories are not any more crazy than the people who support the thermite theories, or the nano-thermite theories, or the energy weapon theories or the demolition via explosive theories or the demolition via micronuke theories.


[edit on 21-6-2010 by iamcpc]