oh yeah dont forget
Terrorist Attacks
Get Up to the Minute News on National News Events Now!
Security People Needed
Earn up to $2500-$7500 a Month Work at Home - Start Today!
galdur Posted: Dec 13 2005, 09:28 PM
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 294
Member No.: 5752
Joined: 12-December 05
QUOTE (Schneibster @ Dec 13 2005, 09:26 PM)
QUOTE
Schneibster, maybe you should take some time off and read the NIST report (better late than never).
If YOU want to make assertions about what is in the NIST report, then it is YOUR responsibility to produce documentation indicating what was said and precisely where. If you cannot, then your arguments are null and void, and I will conclude that you have nothing further to add. I see no evidence that what you claim they say is what they say, nor do I see any evidence that supports a single one of the contentions you have made; in fact, I have produced hard evidence to refute every claim you have made. If you have no further evidence to present, then you have no further relevant points to make; if you have further evidence to present, then present it.
Nonsense.
Either you have the courage to read what I point to or not.
It's not my problem. Now why don't you go do some reading.
You don´t even count in the sprinklers and you think that steel is a lousy
conductor. This obviously implies that steel is a lousy heat sink. What then
has caused steel-frame buildings not to collapse during the history of such
structures even though they suffered much more severe fires and much
longer than the towers. You can't have it both ways.
Is a water soaked environment likely to promote fire and its temperature?
--------------------
Some very revealing Pentagon pictures:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/ph...-09/634945.jpg
http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2001-09/634698.jpg
At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
Note 61: See NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77," Feb. 19, 2002;TSA report, "Criminal Acts Against Civil Aviation for 2001," Aug. 20, 2002, p. 41.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report...port_Notes.htm
galdur Posted: Dec 13 2005, 09:34 PM
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 294
Member No.: 5752
Joined: 12-December 05
P.S. You don't really know what a heat sink is do you?
--------------------
Some very revealing Pentagon pictures:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/ph...-09/634945.jpg
http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2001-09/634698.jpg
At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
Note 61: See NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77," Feb. 19, 2002;TSA report, "Criminal Acts Against Civil Aviation for 2001," Aug. 20, 2002, p. 41.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report...port_Notes.htm
Schneibster Posted: Dec 13 2005, 10:24 PM
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 585
Member No.: 4997
Joined: 13-October 05
Sorry, I now conclude that you in fact have no evidence to back your position up. I class your beliefs with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. We are done here.
galdur Posted: Dec 13 2005, 10:27 PM
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 294
Member No.: 5752
Joined: 12-December 05
QUOTE (Schneibster @ Dec 13 2005, 10:24 PM)
Sorry, I now conclude that you in fact have no evidence to back your position up. I class your beliefs with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. We are done here.
I don't really think you´ll be missed.
Now stay away.
When browsing threads here one soon sees
that you are constantly on the defensive with
your harebrain theories (which you swallow
whole from proven and habitual liars).
Hopefully your replacement will be more
substantial.
--------------------
Some very revealing Pentagon pictures:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/ph...-09/634945.jpg
http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2001-09/634698.jpg
At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
Note 61: See NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77," Feb. 19, 2002;TSA report, "Criminal Acts Against Civil Aviation for 2001," Aug. 20, 2002, p. 41.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report...port_Notes.htm
bin laden Posted: Dec 13 2005, 10:31 PM
Unregistered
me too.
galdur Posted: Dec 13 2005, 10:44 PM
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 294
Member No.: 5752
Joined: 12-December 05
QUOTE (solidspin @ Sep 30 2005, 01:21 PM)
your error is mostly not in your basic physics. However several issues you glossed over are that while steel melts @1500, you completely failed to include in your pseudoanalysis the huge number of accelerants AND, more specifically, insulators - namely asbestos - that were present on every floor. I know b/z I was in those elevator shafts, b/z I knew several people in the elevator union who were able to get me in - obviously several years before this bullsh&t occurred. At any rate, the temperature could have easily climbed to 1500 and higher. Secondly there were significant amounts of medical-grade oxygen on those planes. Since you disclaim the videos, you definitely didn't see the 2nd, 3rd, quat. explosions that occurred after the primary plane impact. While you may know basic physics, your combustion chemistry skillset is obviously poor.
Most of your error is in your accretion of "evidence". How could you not have viewed the videoclips from the many different angles that were presented?
Furthermore, my dad was standing at the window watching when the 2nd plane hit, since he worked on Water St. He watched the fkn plane fly right into it - firsthand. I grant that oftentimes eye-witness testimony is skewed, but it's quite obvious you're just a complete idiot. My friends died in that heinous tragedy and several others who, by sheer happenstance, were late that day (my dad went in early) saw the whole thing, and made it out alive. You do a gross disservice to your own countrymen/women who died.
-angrily spinning solids.
Well, I've been reading this thread and apparently
I'm the first to mention the SPRINKLER SYSTEMS.
That's a pretty big factor to ignore.
--------------------
Some very revealing Pentagon pictures:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/ph...-09/634945.jpg
http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2001-09/634698.jpg
At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
Note 61: See NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77," Feb. 19, 2002;TSA report, "Criminal Acts Against Civil Aviation for 2001," Aug. 20, 2002, p. 41.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report...port_Notes.htm
Guest Posted: Dec 13 2005, 10:45 PM
Unregistered
Shneibster, adoucette, YID and such like cannot be replaced with better.
Give the poor souls a break, how would you like to try and defend such a crock of ***?
To steal and paraphrase - it's the story stupid.
Impossble collapses, impossible reicarnating highjackers, 3 diffeent timelines, 4 million warnings from without and within, Bush in the classroom, Rumsfeld and Myers in meetings when its all going on, Graham and Goss meeting with the money man on the day, Graham already specifically warned and Goss made head of the the whole shebang.
Just take the piss out of these poor souls - then feed them to the Jersey girls when the boat comes in.
Schneibster Posted: Dec 13 2005, 10:46 PM
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 585
Member No.: 4997
Joined: 13-October 05
Oh, no, you misunderstood. I meant YOU are done, or in any case that I am done answering you- not that the ANALYSIS is done. Too bad, if you actually had anything to back up what you say, you might have been interesting. As it is, you're just another boring liar.
galdur Posted: Dec 13 2005, 11:06 PM
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 294
Member No.: 5752
Joined: 12-December 05
QUOTE (Schneibster @ Dec 13 2005, 10:46 PM)
Oh, no, you misunderstood. I meant YOU are done, or in any case that I am done answering you- not that the ANALYSIS is done. Too bad, if you actually had anything to back up what you say, you might have been interesting. As it is, you're just another boring liar.
You have been totally contentless so this
is great news.
I´ll just go on discussing sprinkler systems, heat conducting steel,
heat sinks, how energy can´t just be created out of nothing and
other fundamentals.
--------------------
Some very revealing Pentagon pictures:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/ph...-09/634945.jpg
http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2001-09/634698.jpg
At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
Note 61: See NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77," Feb. 19, 2002;TSA report, "Criminal Acts Against Civil Aviation for 2001," Aug. 20, 2002, p. 41.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report...port_Notes.htm
Schneibster Posted: Dec 14 2005, 12:30 AM
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 585
Member No.: 4997
Joined: 13-October 05
Fine, but please note that if you say something stupid or contrafactual, I will continue to note it.
Guest_yesitdid Posted: Dec 14 2005, 01:26 AM
Unregistered
I am posting from a hotel computer so I will only get two posts tonight as a 'guest'
First metamars , yes B-Z says it took 0.12 of the KE to collapse the next floor down from the initial collapse floor. But that is 0.12 of the KE contained in the falling upper section. The total KE would climb as more and more mass was moving faster and faster so the energy that it took to collapse the first floor would be much smaller than 0.12 of the total KE contained in the full collapse.
Second, galdur, please show a reference that backs up your claim that there was active fire suppression systems (sprinklers) on the floors in question. Then show that these sprinklers were supplied by tanks above the fire floors.
In fact one of the main concerns that NIST had was the sweetheart deals that the PANYC had in relation to fire codes.
One of the fire fighting problems in the towers was that the aircraft impacts severed the standpipes in the building and thus no water was being supplied above to the fire floors.
Schneibster, NIST does indeed state that of the two column sections they have that are positively identified as having come from fir floors that both of them did not get above 250C. This does not, as it is taken by many, mean that no columns did in fact get hotter than that. It simply means that those two columns didn't.
As for the heat transfer capability of steel goes, if steel is such a great heat sink and thus large columns and beams cannot be made to reach high temps then why bother at all with the foam fire insulation on them?
Steel does conduct heat but it follows certain constraints. If the rate of heat input exceeds the rate at which that heat can be transfered then the steel closest to the heat source will continue to get hotter. Heat transfer rates depend on the geometry of the steel, the volume of the steel, the difference in temp between heat source and the steel that is distant from the heat source, and the environment around distant areas of the steel. That last point would include the fact that the fire insulation foam was intact on the steel on floors that did not suffer aircraft impact. This means that the steel of the columns on those floors would not be radiating heat very efficiently to the cooler floor's airspace.
Schneibster posted a picture of a metal worker holding steel rod that was yellow hot at one end yet his hand is comfortable. The biggest difference between this and the columns of the towers would be the thickness of the steel. But all that means is that the steel columns would take longer to heat a section to any given temp. It would not preclude it from reaching that temp. The next big difference would be that the smaller rod would radiate heat along the cooler sections more quickly than the large columns could for two reasons. First because the ratio of surface area to volume is larger in a narrower rod than a thick column(do the math) AND because the rod is not insulated along its length while the columns would have been insulated except where the insulation had been blown off which is exactly where the heat is being input to the steel.
So I await thermodynamic calculations that will show that the steel columns could not have gotten hot enough to start losing strength. Though given that the people who study fire for a living had deemed it prudent to put fire insulation on those self same columns it would appear that they considered it a possibility.
Schneibster Posted: Dec 14 2005, 02:15 AM
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 585
Member No.: 4997
Joined: 13-October 05
YID, thanks for the data- I hadn't gotten around to asking how extensive the samples were yet, I expected to find that they were on the perimeter or the far side of the building.
zoktoberfest Posted: Dec 14 2005, 02:23 AM
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 124
Member No.: 5013
Joined: 14-October 05
schneibster;
I viewed the links that you provided. I came away with an enhanced understanding , that depending on magnitude, there are two systems involved in the discharge of accumulated static from the outer hull of an aircraft. In-flight conditions, which can generate high levels, are dissipated via a multitude of antenna like "wicks", projecting outward from the trailing edge of the wing.----Although not discussed at length in the article, the re-mix of the laminar air flow would occur at just this very point. Could that immediate zone of turbulence, some how produce an ionic condition that would oppose the (static) potential of the aircraft?----OK that leaves the garden variety, nuisance static we all know so well. I'm sure the initial interface between the fuel nozzle and the tank inlet are closed and vapor vacated. Any discharge at this point, could be handled by resistive ground straps as you mentioned.
This discussion originated in my post, where the purpose of the flash was speculated on. In your follow-up, you expressed merit in the popular view that the aircraft was arcing to ground (WTC) before impact. If that were true, the functionality of the static suppression system would need to be called into question. Advocating high hull potential and then linking to a site that explains how the industry successfully handles static accumulation, seems to be at cross purposes here. With that said, I no longer consider the flashes to be indicative of anything more than a, yet to be agreed upon, natural consequence of impact.
Schneibster Posted: Dec 14 2005, 04:28 AM
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 585
Member No.: 4997
Joined: 13-October 05
Zoktoberfest, you make a good point about the static being unlikely to be the cause. I have to agree with you- but like you, I also don't believe that it is indicative of anything outrageously unusual. My original take on it was a specular reflection, but review of the sun angle and so forth convinced me that was unlikely; mind you, it is still possible that it was a reflection off the nosecone, of a reflection in the windows of the WTC tower, of a reflection of the sun from some other building. My tendency is to agree with 9/11 Review's and questionsquestions' assertion that it is an oxidation effect of aluminum vapor on the leading edges of first the nosecone, then the engines, as they strike the side of the building and are partly vaporized by the kinetic energy of the plane.
metamars Posted: Dec 14 2005, 05:14 AM
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 561
Member No.: 4979
Joined: 11-October 05
QUOTE
First metamars , yes B-Z says it took 0.12 of the KE to collapse the next floor down from the initial collapse floor. But that is 0.12 of the KE contained in the falling upper section. The total KE would climb as more and more mass was moving faster and faster so the energy that it took to collapse the first floor would be much smaller than 0.12 of the total KE contained in the full collapse.
Doh! You're right. Not sure if Shneibster made claims at odds with BZ regarding energy on the first sound floor (or 2 or 3...) ,or not.
Regarding heat eqn:
Haven't been able to spend much time, but if you have time....
(NOTE: These 2 individuals responded to question regarding heat eqn, not 911 conspiracies.)
Lang Moore of Duke offers:
Look at the module The One-Dimensional Heat Equation -- particularly Part 4 for a discussion of the solution
http://www.math.duke.edu/education/c...eat/heat4.html
The applet in the module cited below uses the Fourier series solution with (I think) 15 terms in the Fourier expansion.
The solution of the heat equation with various boundary conditions is a standard topic in Engineering Mathematics books (Kreyzig or O'Neil or one of the others).
For the setup you describe at the end, you really have two problems. Set up the first one, let it run for X seconds. Use the state at that time as your new initial condition. Then change the boundary conditions and solve the new problem.
=================
Robert Terrel of Cornell U offers:
all the source code is at my web page
http://www.math.cornell.edu/~bterrell/free.html
In applets, 99% of the code is user interface, not math.
> Howdy. I saw your web site, and was interested in looking at your source
> code.
> Right now, I want to solve the 1d heat eqn, where initial temperature is
> uniform, but temperatures at each end are DIFFERENT. (Really, I'd love a
> symbolic solution, also.)
This is a standard problem which can be "solved" by the Fourier series
methods in
any differential equations book. But the numerical solution is
faster to compute than the series.
> Do you have source code that I can run on Windows or Linux? I'd much
> prefer java, but even C or C++ might do the trick.
> Also, would you be kind enough to advise me regarding MatLab (or better
> yet, an open source package)?
Octave is a free version of matlab. The effect of fire on
a column is far beyond anything that anybody can compute, I think,
but you could browse the professional civil engineering journals.
Ads by Google Sept 11th Commemoratives
One-of-a-kind design Not found in any store!
World Trade Center
Find, compare and buy Furniture! Simply Fast Savings
« Next Oldest | Physics General | Next Newest »
Pages: (619) « First ... 98 99 [100] 101 102 ... Last »
Close Topic Options
Track this topic
Receive email notification when a reply has been made to this topic and you are not active on the board.
Subscribe to this forum
Receive email notification when a new topic is posted in this forum and you are not active on the board.
Download / Print this Topic
Download this topic in different formats or view a printer friendly version.
Forum Home Search Help News discussions - General Science News - Nanotechnology and Quantum Physics News - Physics News - Space News - Electronic Devices News - Technology News Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories - Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories ---- Special Project: 'Complete' Cosmology Theory From Scratch PhysOrg WebLog - PhysOrg WebLog Space - Space Nanotechnology & Quantum Physics - Nanotechnology - Quantum physics Physics - Physics General - Materials Technology - Technology General - Silicon technology General Science - General Science General discussions - Homework Help - Puzzling questions - Creation / Evolution - Off-topic PhysOrg and PhysOrgForum - Comments / Suggestions
[ ****** Execution time: 0.2533 ] [ 14 queries used ] [ GZIP Enabled ]
Terms of use
Powered by Invision Power Board(U) v1.3.1 Fina
