9/11

I see . . .

 

I learned with welding that different arc currents and temperature result in different coloured welds. You can get a rainbow if you want. Plus stainless also changes colors when heated.

Another thing people don't know about steel is its a conductor of moisture. Run an oxy torch over steel and it sweats a lot lol.

 

No.

Also, you haven't addressed this:

A considerable amount of energy would be required to pulverise the concrete into the fine dust which was evident from the photographic and other evidence. To quantify this energy it is necessary to use the fracture energy value, but this has a variable value dependent on, among other factors, the size of the concrete piece, and its constituents, most notably, aggregate size. There is no typical value. In order to assess the energy consumed I will refer to the work of Dr. Frank Greening [2]. It should be noted that Dr. Greening, like Dr. Bazant, does not, as yet, support the contention that the tower collapse was caused by anything other than the damage caused by aircraft impact and subsequent and consequent fires.

An initiation mechanism involving a total and instantaneous loss of all load bearing ability on one storey, sufficient to cause a 3.7m drop under full gravitational acceleration followed by a neat impact is not credible. This is presented to show the relative sizes of the energies involved. This analysis underestimates the energy demands by using a constant value of velocity, equal to the velocity at impact, 8.5 m/sec. This is an assumption made in favour of collapse continuation.
This analysis also assumes that each storey had the same mass. The effect that this assumption has, is to underestimate the energy losses at collision. No account has been taken of the mass which falls outside the tower perimeter, and most notably neither of the expulsion of large amounts of dust early in the collapse, nor of the energy requirement to cause these masses to move outside the perimeter.

This analysis takes no regard of the energy consumed in damage caused to spandrel plates or other structural elements, nor disconnection of the floor to column connections, crushing of floor contents, nor of any other energies expended. No account is taken of any strain energy consumption during the initial fall through the height of one full storey, though this would be a substantial proportion of the initial energy input.

Momentum Transfer in WTC1

And you haven't answered this:

Keep in mind that the observed lateral ejection of debris and steel from the get-go not only reduced the mass and kinetic energy of the upper block, but also required more kinetic energy from the upper block to do so. And the pulverization of that concrete and steel took yet more kinetic energy from the descending upper block. So where did the energy to do all this, with enough left over to clear a path for the upper block to drop through the intact lower core structure at virtual freefall speed, come from?

Apparently you have no idea what it means that, from the moment the upper block begins its descent, it falls through the intact core structure below as if it wasn't there. You seem to not understand that when a moving body collides with a body of the same composition, two things happen. The moving body is slowed down, and the stationary body is moved. In your world, the stationary body is moved, but the moving body is NOT slowed down. Go ahead and try to convince us that there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for that effect.

And the main issue with the pulverization is that it began within a few seconds of collapse. Go ahead and explain that.
______________________________________________

Is there a reason why you're ignoring these points like the plague?

 

I was going to say stainless irm.

 

Screw it.

I can't read posts without falling asleep.

I'm out.

 

Backyard welder here. well not for a decade lol, but I know a thing or two about steel at least, and I have enough qualifications to go into a trade with a first year apprenticeship degree already completed in high school. 2 years in metal fab lol.

What I can tell you from first hand experience with steel is, even welding a plate onto a piece of steel can and will warp the steel. It's actually doesn't take that much to deform steel under extreme heats. To stop this I remember doing heat and quench treatments in class. This was heating up steel before welding, welding it together and then quenching under cold water to shrink the steel a faster rate to stop it from warping.

Fun fact: the Sydney Harbour Bridge extends anywhere between 300mm - 600mm in both directions throughout the day, and that's only from sun heat. So that should enlighten some folks just how tedious and much effect simple heat has on steel structures, and that bridge runs horizontal, not vertical. I've climbed the top of the thing on a tour so we learn all this stuff on the way.

 

Good dog almighty, Orison, you are so 2002. Molten aluminum is silvery in daylight conditions. NIST tried to claim it was molten aluminum too, saying that organics mixed with the MA to give the yellow color but they never did any experiments to verify. [NIST never ever did any experiments to verifiy anything because they knew that would collapse their arrant nonsense/ big lies.

Independent scientists did do experiments. Organics would not mix with aluminum, they floated on top. It was molten steel/iron pouring out of WTC2.

Haven't you seen the FEMA, Appendix C report where there is a picture of WTC7 melted/vaporized structural steel?

Here it is. Click on the link and you will see a piece of the molten/vaporized WTC structural steel which means that there were no Arab hijackers.

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403_apc.pdf

 

Yes, it is molten steel or molten iron from the nanothermite that was used to blow up the twin towers. See my reply to Orison. [sp?]

 

How does a piece of steel mean there were no hijackers? Lol.

Here's a piece of steel from the WTC. This piece of steel means there were no hijackers.

 

Is there a point to your post that somehow relates to WTC?

 

Only on fuckin' Tuesdays

 

No?

How ridiculous. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously now?

No concrete in the rubble? Like Hogans heoes stuff now, - I zee nothing

As for your Dr Greening, he is a nobody, lab assistant at a canadian power plant for 20 years. PhD in Chemisrty, so he off all people should know whats in concrete, its only the gravel and any polymers that are larger than 2mm going in, about 1/2, the rest is water, sand, cement. They use different types of concrete, different densities in different places

There are so many holes in that paper, so many margins of error that will just compound, he takes the timing off the tv, assummes the same weight for every floor and doesnt include the effect of certain bracing structures because that would be basically too hard.

But none of that matters, because I told you 1.5 x 90,000 is not how you work out potential energy, not even close.

Whats it now, close to 17 years, you have been suckered into this? Jeez

 

I'll take this nice and slow for you.

No steel at WTC saw temperatures of more than 1500F and that was just air temperatures, not steel temperatures. The reason, hydrocarbon fires, jet fuel and office furnishings in open air max temps do not exceed these temps.

However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C/1,382-1,472F range. [Eager & Musso]

Melt steel 2,800F - That is some 1300 F above the maximum temperatures jet fuel fires can attain.

Vaporize steel 4,900F - That is some 3400 F above the maximum temperatures jet fuel fires can attain.

The only fuels that alleged hijackers had at their disposal burn from 1300 to 3400 degrees F less than the melting and vaporizing temperatures of steel.

Molten and vaporized WTC structural steel means there were no Arab hijackers.

Now you go and find some evidence from the US government about their wacky conspiracy theory that proves there were any Muslim hijackers.

 

Totally relevant actually, she is basucally say that stuff coming out of the impact hole isnt the right colour (or density) for molten steel, and you have gone what, 15 or so years never thinking, hmmm quite possibly it might not be

 

Have you got any evidence for the US government official conspiracy theory? Are you a USG official conspiracy theorist?

 

Have you ever bothered attemptin' a test of these claims yourself? No didn't think so. Just eat what's fed don't ever bite the hand.........good dog

 

The real sad thing about you is that you believe that you've offered some kind of argument here, when all you're doing is barking . . . like an untrained dog.

 

Well seein' as I got no damn clue what the fuck this USG even is I'd say..........oh wait I got it.......no........credentials for the fuckin' win.............

 

Uh huh sure bud. Whatever you say......I'm right you're wrong I know these things to be true because........oh wait........ummmm give me a moment......they are. Aww shit I summed up your entire belief system beyond mundane day to day.












No argument my ass

 

Your lack of evidence tells us that you are BSing everyone.

The following is from,

FAQ #5: What was the molten metal seen pouring out of the South Tower minutes before its collapse?

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did document the flow of molten metal pouring out of the South Tower during the final seven minutes before its collapse, noting the accompanying "unusual bright flame" and "plume of white smoke." However, NIST failed to investigate the phenomenon, dismissing it as molten aluminum from the crashed jet, which melts at only 660°C/1220°F.

NIST's hypothesis may seem plausible at first. But Dr. Steven Jones demonstrates in his 2006 paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" that the official government hypothesis is untested and implausible.

Dr. Jones' paper reveals that the initial bright yellow-white glow of the expelled liquid was consistent with a glowing stream of molten iron from "a nearby thermite reaction zone," and the expected white smoke (aluminum oxide off-gassing) supports that conclusion. NIST must rely on its claim of molten aluminum in order to validate its official fire-based explanation, because office fires cannot generate the extreme temperature required to melt steel or iron. The fundamental flaw of the aluminum hypothesis, though, is that the implied temperature of the white glow remains above 1200°C/2200°F, regardless of the metal involved. An independent researcher suggested that the molten substance could be lead from storage batteries, but this explanation fails — as do all hypotheses based on alternative metals — because the temperature required for the yellow-white glow of the metal is beyond the capability of the building fire.

Figure 4. Molten aluminum appears silvery when poured in daylight conditions, even if initially heated to the yellow-white temperature range in the crucible.Dr. Jones also notes that molten aluminum appears silvery as it melts at 660°C/1220°F, and that it remains silvery when poured in daylight conditions, regardless of the temperature. It is theoretically possible to continue heating liquid aluminum way past its melting point and into the yellow-white temperature range, but the office fire was not a plausible source for such high temperatures, and there was no crucible to contain liquid aluminum for continued heating. Put another way, even if the building fire could have somehow provided the needed temperature for the yellow-white glow, the unrestrained aluminum would have melted and trickled away before it could achieve such a temperature. This problem also rules out other proposed alternative metals — lead, for example — which have similarly low melting points.

Finally, Dr. Jones adds that even if liquid aluminum could have been restrained long enough to make it glow white, it would still have appeared silvery within the first two meters of falling through the air in daylight conditions, due to its high reflectivity and low emissivity.

Figure 5. The liquid metal cannot be aluminum, for it remains orange-yellow, despite falling several hundred feet in broad daylight. NIST states that aluminum "can display an orange glow" if blended with organic materials, but Dr. Jones has experimentally invalidated this theory by demonstrating that organics and molten aluminum do not mix.Thus, the liquid metal seen pouring out of the South Tower could not have been aluminum, since it remains yellow in broad daylight, despite falling several hundred feet through the air.

NIST tries to circumvent this problem with the untested proposition that the observed glow could be due to the mixing of aluminum with combustible organic materials from the building's interior. But Dr. Jones has actually performed the experiments that soundly refute NIST's hypothesis. As he puts it, "This is a key to understanding why the aluminum does not 'glow orange' due to partially-burned organics 'mixed' in (per NIST theory), because they do not mix in! My colleague noted that, just like oil and water, organics and molten aluminum do not mix. The hydrocarbons float to the top, and there burn — and embers glow, yes, but just in spots. The organics clearly do notimpart to the hot liquid aluminum an 'orange glow' when it falls, when you actually do the experiment!"

Dr. Jones et al confirmed the finding of molten iron in a 2008 paper, "Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction," which documents their discovery of iron-rich microspheres in WTC dust samples from two independent sources.

Figure 6. Several reports document the abundant iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust, confirming the formation of molten iron "during the event," according to an independent study of the South Tower dust by the RJ Lee Group.