Proof to put the 9/11 Truthers to bed in less than 2 mins

#830
#830
tumblr_ljh0puClWT1qfkt17.gif


Fascinating thread!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#832
#832
ajvol01 said:
And?
Click to expand...

Trump mentioned the outer part of the towers being the strength the of the buildings in this video, while everyone else in here has been focusing on the interior. Also mentioned it needed more than just a plane crashing into it with jet fuel... he said you also needed bombs.

Of course, that video was after the Twin Towers fell but before WTC 7 fell.

Not sure how Trump would have commented regarding that.
 
#833
#833
Orangedogsrule said:
From SA October 2001
..."Others have pointed out the possibility that the aviation fuel fires burned sufficiently hot to melt and ignite the airliners' aluminum airframe structures. Aluminum, a pyrophoric metal, could have added to the conflagrations. Hot molten aluminum, suggests one well-informed correspondent, could have seeped down into the floor systems, doing significant damage. "Aluminum melts into burning 'goblet puddles' that would pool around depressions, [such as] beam joints, service openings in the floor, stair wells and so forth...The goblets are white hot, burning at an estimated 1800 degrees Celsius. At this temperature, the water of hydration in the concrete is vaporized and consumed by the aluminum. This evolves hydrogen gas that burns. Aluminum burning in concrete produces a calcium oxide/silicate slag covered by a white aluminum oxide ash, all of which serve to insulate and contain the aluminum puddle. This keeps the metal hot and burning. If you look at pictures of Iraqi aircraft destroyed in their concrete shelters [during the Persian Gulf war], you will notice a deep imprint of the burned aircraft on the concrete floor.
--------------------------
Click to expand...

1. Jet fuel burning
2. Melted aluminium
3. 1800 degrees Celsius (not Fahrenheit)

Make sense of all of that...
 
#834
#834
Rasputin_Vol said:
1. Jet fuel burning
2. Melted aluminium
3. 1800 degrees Celsius (not Fahrenheit)

Make sense of all of that...
Click to expand...

1800°C = 3272°F

Also, from:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.popu...p6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

...sic..."Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat"...

While Trump does build tall towers, he is not trained as an engineer.

Aluminium burning at 3270°F is 520°F HOTTER than the temperature required to puddle steel.

But steel can lose virtually ALL of it's strength ( be like Play Dough---well, for youse guys I'd say Silly Putty) and still look like a structural member. But THAT amount of degradation IS NOT required for catastrophic failure.

Go study Young's Modulus for carbon (structural) steel.
Know the differences between elastic, plastic, and maximum yield limits.

What are stress and strain? How do they relate? How does temperature affect them for various steels? Learn Mohr's Circle of Stress and Strain, a little materials science dealing with metallic crystalline lattice structure's grain growth, and behavior at various temperatures, crack propagation, creep, etc.. When you're proficient in a few years, you might come to an understanding. That is, unless your preconcieved notions get in the way.

The jets' impact damaged enough of the core structures that, along with the raging infernos, the catenary action of several floors of failing floor truss systems pulling on the already heated exterior frame, that when even one floor finally reached catastrophic failure stress, and began the process of falling on the floor below; that was completely sufficient to bring down the towers and form all the compounds found in the ashes. Nothing else was required.

So we absolutely KNOW there WAS a CONSPIRACY.

Go find the right one. Why waste time doodle bugging round and round in what, to virtually all trained engineers is settled science.

Personally, I believe extreme muslim jihadists in The Base (Al Queda) of an international organization bent on fomenting the destruction of the existing leadership in muslim countries (Islamic Spring), and out of the ashes, form a new caliphate- ISIS or ISIL.

It is these mujahideen who perpetrated the attack, and they have succeeded in the establishment of a new caliphate. One that is abjectly violent and evil.
One that no good god could possibly approve.
 
Last edited:
#837
#837
Rasputin_Vol said:
Trump mentioned the outer part of the towers being the strength the of the buildings in this video, while everyone else in here has been focusing on the interior. Also mentioned it needed more than just a plane crashing into it with jet fuel... he said you also needed bombs.

Of course, that video was after the Twin Towers fell but before WTC 7 fell.

Not sure how Trump would have commented regarding that.
Click to expand...

and Trump knows what? seriously you were doing better quoting high school physics teachers who admitted they ignored half the equation, and thats not a good place to start.

it doesn't matter how strong the exterior is once the interior falls away, there is nothing to support it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#839
#839
well technically its even lower than that, but that's when you can start noticing it when it comes to loading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#840
#840
According to witnesses, the planes that hit the towers were grey, had no windows and airline markings.

I can't think of any airliners that fit this description.
 
#841
#841
Rasputin_Vol said:
You still don't get it, do you?
Click to expand...

Just what, specifically, is it you think I (and a zillion other mechanical, civil, structural, engineers and architects) don't get.

Question: How much post secondary education do you have in the sciences? And which ones?
 
#842
#842
Orangedogsrule said:
Just what, specifically, is it you think I (and a zillion other mechanical, civil, structural, engineers and architects) don't get.

Question: How much post secondary education do you have in the sciences? And which ones?
Click to expand...

You missed the part about burning jet fuel and 1800 degrees Celsius. Jet fuel doesn’t burn that hot. And again, jet fuel has to be atomized in order to burn. The initial crash of the planes would have been the only manner for any of the jet fuel to burn initially. Any fuel left over from the initial impact would not have contributed substantially to the fire. Nor would jet fuel and burning office furniture be hot enough to cause aluminum to melt.

Electrical engineer with several undergrad classes and a lab in materials science and strength of materials.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#843
#843
Rasputin_Vol said:
You missed the part about burning jet fuel and 1800 degrees Celsius.
Click to expand...

No, I even converted it to Farenheit!

Aluminum is a pyrophoric metal and it burns at 1800°C = 3272°F

Go see my previous post where I link an aluminum "mag" wheel set on fire on top of a wood fire. All pyrophoric metals do not have to be finely divided to burn. Magnesium wheels have been known to catch fire in hard cornering or blowouts. They burn completely. Aluminum wheels are harder to ignite, but, as the linked video sjows, they can be ignited by a wood fire. Easily enough heat in the inferno to ingite the airplane. Airplane sheet aluminum is easier to ignite than the heavy thick cast or milled wheels, but once ignited, most of the whole skin and airframe is going to burn at 3272°F.

The jet fuel fire in the core was fed air by the chimney effect of the draft up the compromised service shafts. (elevators, stairs, hvac where fire dampers also compromised) While some large fraction of the fuel was consumed in the initial fireball, anyone with a smattering exposure to flame propagation in liquid combustibles would know it would not all burn up. But as the contained heat vaporized more and more, ...yep. And I do not want to hear the "throw a match in a can of desiel fuel, it'll go out. (jet fuel basically high grade desiel with an additive or two). You sure can light it if you hold a fire to it. It will burn cool in a pool. It will burn hotter when fire induced, chimney effect, drafts are available from the service core AND penetrated exterior walls.

Now...

I'll add this comment below from a student. He's spot on.

Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Future Engineer ()
Date: August 07, 2006 01:59PM

This is a response to the discussion carried out by many suggesting that the planes at the WTC couldn't have brought the buildings down. I'm sorry for being so forward, but in my opinion this is a ridiculous discussion. I am a junior at an engineering-exclusive school studying materials engineering. I admit that I am not an "expert" on the subject. However, I do know enough to explain this situation. The actual maximum burning temperature of a Jet-A fuel (standard jet fuel type in U.S.) is 980 deg. Celsius. If you refer to the Iron-Iron Carbide phase diagram, the temperature at which steel changes from cementite and pearlite (strong phases of steel) to austenite (significantly less strong) is 702.5 deg. Celsius. Also, if a steel structure is exposed to a temperature just below or at the eutectic (702.5 deg.) for a period of time, martinsite is formed (very weak). All it would take is a few I-beams to lose their structural integrity before the "chain reaction" would start. I don't have a strong opinion on the conspiracy theory, but when people say that the heat from burning jet fuel cannot melt steel it bothers me. It doesn't have to "melt" for it to become ineffective. Also, "very strong type of steel" is the most relative statement ever. The steel used in sky scrapers is a standard carbon steel, not heavily alloyed. In any case, the iron-iron carbide phase diagram describes all carbon steels very accurately. Also, when the buildings actually collapsed, all that potential energy was released into heat and sound, which is true for all destructive reactions. So it is quite possible that after the buildings fell, the temperature of the rubble reached levels higher than any fire could produce. Sorry, I’m done ranting.

Options: Reply•Quote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Future Engineer ()
Date: August 07, 2006 02:06PM

Excuse me, spherodite...not martinsite. like I said, i'm still a student.


Jet fuel doesn’t burn that hot. And again, jet fuel has to be atomized in order to burn.
Click to expand...
Phuttt..

Jet fuel is a clear to straw-colored fuel, based on either an unleaded kerosene (Jet A-1), or a naphtha-kerosene blend (Jet B). It is similar to diesel fuel, and can be used in either compression ignition engines or turbine engines


The initial crash of the planes would have been the only manner for any of the jet fuel to burn initially.
Click to expand...
Phuttt...

Any fuel left over from the initial impact would not have contributed substantially to the fire.
Click to expand...
Phuttt...

Nor would jet fuel and burning office furniture be hot enough to cause aluminum to melt.
Click to expand...
Ha ha ha ha ha ha lololol

[/QUOTE] Electrical engineer with several undergrad classes and a lab in materials science and strength of materials.[/QUOTE]

Please tell me your degree isn't from UT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#845
#845
Rasputin_Vol said:
Trump mentioned the outer part of the towers being the strength the of the buildings in this video, while everyone else in here has been focusing on the interior. Also mentioned it needed more than just a plane crashing into it with jet fuel... he said you also needed bombs.

Of course, that video was after the Twin Towers fell but before WTC 7 fell.

Not sure how Trump would have commented regarding that.
Click to expand...

Oh, so Trump's opinion from a candid interview shortly after the attacks is worth more than structural engineers?

:no:
 
#847
#847
AirVol said:
According to witnesses, the planes that hit the towers were grey, had no windows and airline markings.

I can't think of any airliners that fit this description.
Click to expand...

The planerls were also going at speeds that are impossible for a 747 to reach at sea level.

The entire government narrative is flimsy. I'm actually surprised there are still people who believe it.
 
#850
#850
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
The planerls were also going at speeds that are impossible for a 747 to reach at sea level.

The entire government narrative is flimsy. I'm actually surprised there are still people who believe it.
Click to expand...

I have stock in the Brooklyn Bridge. We're setting up a toll booth. Lisence to print money. Me dear ol mom is sick and I need money so I'll sell out to you cheap.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top