Dan wrote in news:6DkLf.23572$Ug4.8179@dukeread12:
TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:IpjLf.23563$Ug4.13024@dukeread12:
TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news
lgLf.22321$Ug4.11952@dukeread12:
TRUTH wrote:
His arguments are based on scientific principles. They do not
have to be convincing,
Then forgive us for not being convinced.
since scientific laws cannot be changed, such as the Law of
Increasing Entropy.
Entropy applies here how?
Are you an engineer or physicist?
No. Are you?
Evasion noted.
How do explain THREE collapses at near free fall speed? First
time in history from fire!
There weren't any collapses at near free fall speed. They were
considerably slower.
Wrong. Towers collapsed in 10 seconds maximum. Building 7 was about
7 seconds.
Do the math, the formula is D = 16T^2
Where did the energy come from to pulvarize concrete and office
furniture into particles of fine powder?
The mass of the floors above. The formula is F = MA. Look it
up.
Absurd and illogical. You cannot simply take a formula and plug the
information in and expect an accurate answer.
That's precisely what formulae are for. I assume you took some
math
and science in school. What do you think they were trying to teach
you?
Actually using simple formulae is exactly how it's done. It's
done
repeatedly or plugged into another formula or both. Calculus
simplifies this, computers make it even easier. No matter how big
the equation is it is made up of smaller parts that can be worked
into or out of the picture. You have repeatedly told us you have no
science background so don't tell us who do how it is done. What is
"absurd and illogical" is your insisting you know better when you
also say you don't.
Actually, no it's not. When there are unknowns, they must also be
taken into acount. In you believe otherwise, then your education is
faulty.
What do you think equations are for? Of course they are to solve
for
unknowns. I never said otherwise. Apparently you are as weak on
communication as you are on science and math.
You call me weak? You're the one using not looking at all the data
Did you know Ke (kinetic energy)= 1/2mv^2 is an application of F =
ma?
Buildings NEVER collapsed in that manner before, EXCEPT from
controlled demolitions.
The 21 story Mexico City building did. No matter how many times
you
try to ignore it it did collapse that way. I haven't looked at every
single building collapse in history, neither have you, so I can't
say there are other examples or not.
That building was no more than 3 stories tall.
It was 21 stories before collapse.
Anyone with eyes can see
that. That tiny building did NOT pulvarise to dust.
Neither did WTC.
NO STEEL FRAMED HI RISE BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPES FROM FIRE PERIOD!
Prove it.
When I find the link, I will provide it. (Despite the fact that you
haven't provided ANY evidence of your own, other than the Mexico Ciy
collapse that was not caused by fire.)
YOU are the one ignoring the evidence. So stop projecting it onto me.
No, you are altering the test here. You never specified collapse
due
to fire until now.
Take a look at the "FACTS" post that I posted a number of times. Fire has
NEVER caused a steel framed building to completely collapse. And
definitely not straight down, at near free fall speed, with accompanying
squibs and all!
Where did the force come to *evaporate* steel?
Heat alone can do that. Metal DOES boil and become a gas at
high
enough temperatures.
Desiel fuel burns no where near hot enough to melt steel. So, I
repeat: Where did the force come to *evaporate* steel?
Jet fuel is NOT diesel. It is closer to kerosene. What keeps jet
engines from melting is selection of materials and bypass air. Jet
fuel CAN burn steel given enough oxygen and that's what happened. It
is more than apparent you don't know what "force" means since you
don't use it correctly here.
Instead of childishly insulting me, how about admitting that burning
jet fuel does not get hot enough to melt steel?
I might have had it been true. Besides, I have seen jet fuel/oxygen
burn through steel. It's all a mater of how it's burned. Let me try an
analogy you might be able to understand: a Coleman™ stove. If you pour
the fuel on the ground and light it you get a relatively cool flame.
Now run it through your stove. The gas generator is heated by the
burner. The gas generator turns the liquid fuel into a gas. The gas
form burns much hotter than the liquid form. The same was true at WTC,
initially the fire was relatively cool until it started sucking air in
from outside at a high rate, imagine a chimney effect, giving the fire
a higher oxygen burn rate. This is essentially a variation of how a
jet engine works. The exhaust gas temperatures are much higher than
simple burning liquid jet fuel. Now imagine another analogy: a
kerosene lamp. When you light the wick you get a low, dim flame. Put
the chimney back and the air around the flame heats up. This sucks in
more air at a higher rate than before which makes the flame burn
hotter and brighter.
Now the same jet fuel that can burn hot enough to melt steel can
also
burn cool enough to use in a cigarette lighter. Now you know where I
used to get free lighter fluid many moons ago when I smoked.
Please provide a link where all that information can be verified by a
physicist, or similar expert. You might know about NORAD, but your USAF
background does not cover steel melting fires. Sorry.
Why was there moltel metal and yellow-hot metal under the Towers
(AND BUILDING 7) weeks after 9/11? (Those colors are consistant
with thermite explosives.)
Wrong again, I have used thermite and it burns white hot and
not for
weeks. Thermite burns at too slow a rate to be used for demolition
of tall buildings. There were fires from broken gas lines. Yellow
hot steel is no where near "molten."
Forgive me, I gave the wrong color. (Jones paper gives the right
information though.) Perhaps you can explain where the energy came
from to cause steel (or iron) to get that hot.
I will say it again: there were fires from broken gas lines.
Remember
how NYFD had to put them out before major excavation could begin?
Okay, if that case, show me some information proving that gas fires
can get hot enough to melt steel.
See above. Besides have you ever heard of oxygen/acetylene welding?
It melts steel. Acetylene is a hydrocarbon fairly close to natural gas
in energy. Know what the difference between an oxygen/acetylene
welding torch and an oxygen/acetylene cutting torch is? Without going
into detail the cutting torch burns more efficiently generating a
higher temperature which cuts the steel by vapourising it.
How exactly does all this apply to the WTC?
Also, explain how the gas fires got hot enough to cause 47 steel
columns to simultaniously sever.
I never said it did. You asked about the hot steel AFTER the
collapse, remember? See above.
I asked you numerous times how the 47 massive steel columns got severed.
In addition, how they got severed simultaneuosly, in both towers. I am
still waiting for that answer.
Also, why did the government hall away and destroy the evidence
before it could be properly analyzed?
I assume you mean "haul," now prove they did.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Oh, thank you for correcting my poor spelling.
Here's your proof:
BILL MANNING
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, FIRE ENGINEERING MAGAZINE:
"$elling Out The Investigation" article quotes: "Such destruction
of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials
to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest
fire-induced collapse in world history."
"Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully
resourced, forensic investigation is imperative"
"The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission
a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough
investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones
unturned."
full article: http://tinyurl.com/3h5mk
The article you cite is flat out wrong as is your suggestion the
salvage was deliberately destroyed before being properly analyzed.
The salvage was taken to Fresh Kills where each piece was
forensically examined before a decision was made to release or not.
There is not enough space nor requirement to keep every piece so
that which has no probative value was sold off.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Oh really. Show me just one article from a reputable source verifying
that.
Just as soon as you start citing reputable sources for your claims.
If you don't consider Fire Engineering a reputable source, then your
thinking is not clear and there's nothing more I can do for you. Sorry
NOTE: Fire Engineering is not a "newsstand" magazine. It is a
professional trade journal, for fire houses. I could assure you, the
article is 100% correct.
Then your assurance would be wrong. You also assured us Jones'
paper
was peer reviewed so your assurances mean nothing to me. I used to be
a gunsmith and I found errors in trade journals.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired