More tin foil for Changleen's hat...

[N8]

:p:p:p

By John Daly
UPI International Correspondent


Washington, DC, Jun. 13 (UPI) -- Insider notes from United Press International for June 8

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."

[I Are Baboon]

I guess the planes were used to ignite the fuses.

[Damn True]

I guess the planes were used to ignite the fuses.

There were no planes, it was all done with computer graphics and it was a cruise missile that hit the pentagon. :rolleyes:

[N8]

Yet another reason why economists are not engineers.


:p

[llkoolkeg]

Everyone knows that the Chills Alien from Area 51 is really to blame. He used his mind-control ray on those poor muslims who were innocently on their way to an Exacto/Stanley Trade Convention.

[$tinkle]

isn't tin foil made from Reynold's wrap?

[clancy98]

is "reynold's Wrap" like a periodic element now?

[MMike]

is "reynold's Wrap" like a periodical element now?

An element of a monthly magazine?

[$tinkle]

if you want to howl even more about this, check out what the ya-ya sisterhood is saying over at dummocratiKKK wunderground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x43349)

i'd offer choice pieces, but something this good has to be appreciated in its entirety

[Andyman_1970]

Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University

rrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhh hhhhttttttttttttt...................when you get a degree in engineering feel free to call me and we'll talk........ :rolleyes:

[sanjuro]

Oh boy!

[$tinkle]

It is well-known that the hole in the west wing of the Pentagon, less than 18-foot diameter, was too small to accommodate a Boeing 757, but the North Tower’s hole wasn’t big enough for a Boeing 767 either, the alleged widebody airliner used on AA Flight 11 (officially tail number N334AA, FAA-listed as "destroyed"). A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 155’ 1" (47.6 m) yet the maximum distance across the hole in the North Tower was about 115 feet (35 m), a hole undersized by some 40 feet or 26 percentwho needs an engineering degree? just watch tom & jerry, looking for jerry to wear the dog disguise, which always sends tom running scared thru a wall, leaving a perfect tom-shaped hole.

can't you understand this?

[N8]

if you want to howl even more about this, check out what the ya-ya sisterhood is saying over at dummocratiKKK wunderground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x43349)

i'd offer choice pieces, but something this good has to be appreciated in its entirety


BBWWHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

The DUmmies are too stoned to know O from X.

[Andyman_1970]

It is well-known that the hole in the west wing of the Pentagon, less than 18-foot diameter, was too small to accommodate a Boeing 757, but the North Tower’s hole wasn’t big enough for a Boeing 767 either, the alleged widebody airliner used on AA Flight 11 (officially tail number N334AA, FAA-listed as "destroyed"). A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 155’ 1" (47.6 m) yet the maximum distance across the hole in the North Tower was about 115 feet (35 m), a hole undersized by some 40 feet or 26 percent

hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmm...........let me think, which is stronger, steel or aluminum???? I guess they faked the surveliance video of that 757 impacting the ground just before hitting the side of the Pentagon...........that couldn't have disipated some of the energy..................nah couldn't have........ :nuts:

[dhtahoe]

hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmm...........let me think, which is stronger, steel or aluminum???? I guess they faked the surveliance video of that 757 impacting the ground just before hitting the side of the Pentagon...........that couldn't have disipated some of the energy..................nah couldn't have........ :nuts:

Yeah I know... People always say there was not enough aircraft parts to be a crash site. Ever seen a plane crash in real life...I have. I watched a Beechcraft Bonanza crash into a golf course at my first job flying. Other than the prop that snapped off before it hit the ground we could not even tell a plane had hit the ground. Just a small blackened 7-10ft hole about 4 ft deep. There is an old airforce film showing an F-4 fighter hitting a cinderblock wall doing over 500 mph. It TOTALLY atomized the ENTIRE aircraft... NOTHING LEFT!!!!

[Changleen]

hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmm...........let me think, which is stronger, steel or aluminum???? I guess they faked the surveliance video of that 757 impacting the ground just before hitting the side of the Pentagon...........that couldn't have disipated some of the energy..................nah couldn't have........ :nuts:I'd like to see such a video.

[Changleen]

rrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhh hhhhttttttttttttt...................when you get a degree in engineering feel free to call me and we'll talk........ :rolleyes:I have a degree in Engineering.

[Changleen]

I have to say I'm really impressed with the high quality of your counter-arguments against the controlled demolition theory. However I suppose people who have conditioned themselves into blind belief structures over the years are the last people who are ever going to have the balls to actually question their leaders and examine the evidence for themselves.

Anyone care to explain to me how the Jet fuel weakened the towers enough to cause their collapse given that it doesn't burn hot enough?

Anyone care to comment on the fact that despite that the bottom 2/3 of the towers suffered no damage, they offered no resistance to the fall of the upper section?

Anyone care to comment on the collapse of WTC7 8 hours later?

You guys are all 'Yeah, right' and 'huh huh look at the conspiricy nut' but you have nothing to discount any of these points other than half cocked explanations carried out by interested parties, (which are mostly disputed by serious independant critics) and your own blindly held beliefs.

[sanjuro]

Anyone care to explain to me how the Jet fuel weakened the towers enough to cause their collapse given that it doesn't burn hot enough?


What is the temperature of Jet Fuel burning? What is the melting point of steel girders?


Anyone care to comment on the fact that despite that the bottom 2/3 of the towers suffered no damage, they offered no resistance to the fall of the upper section?


What is the weight of the top third of the Tower? How much weight is the bottom 2/3 of the Tower is design to hold up if you collapse the weight of the top third on it?


Anyone care to comment on the collapse of WTC7 8 hours later?


What hit it? How much diesel fuel burnt before the collapse?


You guys are all 'Yeah, right' and 'huh huh look at the conspiricy nut' but you have nothing to discount any of these points other than half cocked explanations carried out by interested parties, (which are mostly disputed by serious independant critics) and your own blindly held beliefs.

I should point out that all I know about you Changleen is that you post a lot in the PD forum. So this is more of a personal thing for me and not a criticism of you or your opinions.

One night after lots of drinking I had a knockdown argument with a good friend over the WTC. We were in NY at the time, so that was the backdrop. And he thought there was a conspiracy and I did not.

One thing I learned from this argument (besides don't drink and argue) is that conspiracy theorists offer no real proof. All they can do is point out the flaws in the "accepted theories" and simply pose questions most of us cannot answer.

I did not read the FEMA report, and I have no definitive answer to what happened, because I am not a terrorist or a person inside the WTC on 9/11. I saw what we all saw on TV, and call me a fool, but it is easy to believe a jet plane crashing into a building would cause it to collapse.

I did look over one site questioning WTC7. He disputed pictures, the designs of building fuel pumps, and his conclusion was the report about the collapse was a joke. I only skimmed even just the highlights, and he seemed like a fool to me.

Again, you can call me an idiot for not questioning the government more. I guess I just don't have the time or the energy to do it.

[MMike]

I do not know the temperature of burning jet fuel off hand. I also never recall hearing anything about the girders actually melting. However it certainly would be hot enough to heat them to glowing (because burning WOOD can do that), which would remove any kind of heat treatment they would have had. And anyone who has heated a steel bar with an oxyacetylene torch can tell you how easy it is to bend once it's glowing red. The girders didn't need to melt.

And as for the two thirds holding up the one third....come on. If you have a degree in engineering, you should understand transients. One floor goes at a time. I believe it's called pancaking. One floor goes, it fall to the next one, the impact force plus the weight is imparted on the lower floor...which causes and even larger impact and larger weight....the ituation gets worse and worse. And down she comes.....

[Andyman_1970]

Anyone care to comment on the collapse of WTC7 8 hours later?


Huh let me think a huge building right next to it collapsed - you think some rather large derbis from that rather large building damaged WTC 7, no to mention the fire...........Chang you may have an engineering degree, but you sure aren't sounding like one on this subject........ :confused:

[MMike]

Chang you may have an engineering degree, but you sure aren't sounding like on on this subject........ :confused:

Oh! Oh! Am I sounding like one? Eh? Am I?

[Andyman_1970]

Anyone care to explain to me how the Jet fuel weakened the towers enough to cause their collapse given that it doesn't burn hot enough?

Ok engineer, how hot does structural hot rolled steel have to burn for it to begin to loose it's strength characteristics? Also, those floors were made up of I beams they were light weight trusses - so is more heat required or less heat to weaken a truss over an I beam of of similar weight bearing characteristics?

Anyone care to comment on the fact that despite that the bottom 2/3 of the towers suffered no damage, they offered no resistance to the fall of the upper section?

See Mike's "pancake" comments...................

If you think I'm walking in lock step with some government agency or ideology you're sadly mistaken

You guys are all 'Yeah, right' and 'huh huh look at the conspiricy nut' but you have nothing to discount any of these points other than half cocked explanations carried out by interested parties, (which are mostly disputed by serious independant critics) and your own blindly held beliefs.

The only think the "other side" has offered up is a bunch of rhetoric, this joker from Texas A&M isn't even a scientist or a science background - if I'm going to consider anything I'm certainly going to have to be from someone or a party that has the credentials to back up what they were saying rather than some frothing criminal justice prof.......I'm from Missouri, you're gonna have to "show me".

[Andyman_1970]

Oh! Oh! Am I sounding like one? Eh? Am I?

Actually Mike you sure are, here, here's your honorary RideMonkey engineering degree..............well done............ :)

[MMike]

Actually Mike you sure are, here, here's your honorary RideMonkey engineering degree..............well done............ :)

Sweet! I'll hang it right beside my real one!

[clancy98]

An element of a monthly magazine?

MMike = better than everyone! (In case you weren't picking up on the subtlety) (http://chemlab.pc.maricopa.edu/periodic/periodic.html)

[N8]

I have a degree in Sanitation Engineering.


:p:p:p

[MMike]

MMike = better than everyone! (In case you weren't picking up on the subtlety) (http://chemlab.pc.maricopa.edu/periodic/periodic.html)

NOt everyone. Just you.

[$tinkle]

I have a degree in Engineering.a few quickies: give it back. bush has degrees from harvard & yale (yeah, i know it hurts) from what school (so that we may look up the accreditation)?in the interest of humble full disclosure, i am one class short of graduating (this fall) from the university of colorado (ABET accredited) w/ a bachelors in engineering (computer science major). I write that to expose that having a degree in engineering doesn't make one a proper engineer. Additionally, there're other certs an engineer could obtain to become proper/fully vested - someone will chime in w/ my missing details.

[blt2ride]

:p:p:p

This is just absurd; there is really nothing else that can be said...

[clancy98]

NOt everyone. Just you.

not sayin much.

[MMike]

not sayin much.

Indeed......

[Andyman_1970]

I'd like to see such a video.

CNN Link (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/)

[Damn True]

I worked the crash of the KAL flight that went CFIT on approach to Guam and we almost completely rebuilt that 747 nearly every bit of it was recovered. However, I have also been at crash sites in which you had no idea if the source of the smoking hole was either aircraft or meteor.

[$tinkle]

lew rockwell has thoughts (http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html) on this as well; unfortunately, they aren't his usual cogent analysis.

to wit:Photos show a stable, motionless North Tower (WTC 1) after the damage suffered at 8:46 am and the South Tower after its 9:03 am impact. If we focus on the North Tower, close examination of photos reveals arguably "minor" rather than "severe" damage in the North Tower and its perimeter columns.maybe i should show him photos of me launching off my bike, which suggest that although airborne, i am nonetheless stable & motionless. Then, i'll take a picture of his head, thus proving he doesn't have a brain, as it's not visible.

[clancy98]

Indeed......

http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/pics9/dobbsheads/indeed.jpg

wanna keep going mr last word?

[Damn True]

The maximum adibatic combustion temp for JP-8 is 2300K. JP-8 is a military grade aviation fuel that contains higher amounts of corrosion inhibitors, anti-ice additives, lubricants and flash point reducers. The jetliners that hit the WTC were fueled with Jet A-1. I can't find the the MA for Jet A-1 but I do know that since Jet A-1 contains very little of the above listed additives and because it is a more pure fuel burns hotter.

Even if the fuel was burning at 1/2 of MA (maximum adibatic) the temp would be more than hot enough to degrade heat treatment on the sturctural members of the WTC.

Chang, you really ought to get your info from people who know what they are talking about in regard to this stuff rather than from crackpot internet conspiracy theorists. It is your "blind belief structure" based on nonsense provided by wacko's that is the real danger here.

[$tinkle]

wanna keep going mr last word?i always thought he was partial to this:

http://kvak.com/slike/200105b.gif

[MMike]

wanna keep going mr last word?

Not especially. You really aren't as clever as you think you are, you know...

[MMike]

i always thought he was partial to this:

http://kvak.com/slike/200105b.gif

Well who isn't?

[$tinkle]

CNN Link (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/)this might be more along the lines of the evidence he was looking to ignore:
sandia labs rocket sled tests (http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/video-gallery/#rocketsled)

[Changleen]

CNN Link (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/)Umm, a few things -

1) That's not a video, it's a series of stills.
2) Where's the plane? I don't see a plane. I certainly don't see it hit the lawn and then the pentagon as you claim
3) The date is wrong...
4) The colour of the explosion appears significantly different from the ones at the twin towers.

Take a look at this:

http://www.jar2.com/2/Theories/Pentagon.htm

[Changleen]

I do not know the temperature of burning jet fuel off hand. I also never recall hearing anything about the girders actually melting. However it certainly would be hot enough to heat them to glowing (because burning WOOD can do that), which would remove any kind of heat treatment they would have had. And anyone who has heated a steel bar with an oxyacetylene torch can tell you how easy it is to bend once it's glowing red. The girders didn't need to melt.If you remember correctly, you will recall that the fires were basically out and had been for a while before the buildings collapsed. Secondly, softening of the beams does not hold with your pancake collapse theory. Have you seen the designs of the building?

And as for the two thirds holding up the one third....come on. If you have a degree in engineering, you should understand transients. One floor goes at a time. I believe it's called pancaking. One floor goes, it fall to the next one, the impact force plus the weight is imparted on the lower floor...which causes and even larger impact and larger weight....the ituation gets worse and worse. And down she comes.....The WTC buildings both collapsed at very very close to the acceleration due to gravity – Being as the bottom 2/3's were undamaged, how did this happen? Each floor hit would have slowed the fall some, more at the beginning.

Secondly If the force of the falling building is strong enough to pulverize concrete (remember the huge clouds of fine concrete dust?) then the bolts and rivets would have to hold beyond that force – and then give way. Yet the force to pulverize concrete into fine powder is greater than the force that sheers or stretches steel bolts and rivets. It cannot be both ways.

[Damn True]

The stuff on that site is rubbish.

The point of impact on the Pentagon was small because the aircraft collided with the ground at a slight angle just before hitting the building. It hit at somewhere between 250-600nmph. The fuselage was flattened by the impact, the wing spars fractured and the wings were pulled back by the engines and followed the empenage into the hole.

The "where are the pieces" question is equally absurd. As I said above, there are aircraft crashes in which much of the plane remains intact, and others in which there is nothing left but a smoking hole. The fact that there are no large pieces is not unremarkable, particularly in light of the fact that the aircraft decelerated from as much as 600nmph to zero in a span of about 10' as it was passing through five foot thick reinforced concrete.

The sand and gravel were being laid down on the lawn to support the weight of the heavy equipment that was being used in cleanup/construction.

How do I know this? I have been trained by the USAF in aircraft crash investigation, and I spoke with a person who works at the pentagon and was in the parking lot when the plane crashed. She saw the whole thing, was aroung the pentagon during cleanup and still works there.

Again Chang, like I said above in the post that you have yet to respond to. Get your info from people who know what they are talking about rather than crackpot internet conspiracy theorists.

[Damn True]

BTW, as to your question about missing aircraft parts at the pentagon

A gas genarator rotor
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/enginerotor.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/tr79891.jpg

A portion of the fuselage
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/hullpiece.jpg

An interior structural support with AN tubing attached
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/diffuser.jpg

landing gear
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/landinggear.jpg

A portion of a flight control bellcrank and its mounting structure.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/green_metal.jpg

[Andyman_1970]

How do I know this? I have been trained by the USAF in aircraft crash investigation, and I spoke with a person who works at the pentagon and was in the parking lot when the plane crashed. She saw the whole thing, was aroung the pentagon during cleanup and still works there.


Sweet :thumb: I've taken several graduate level courses on aircraft accident investigation and would concur with your analysis.

[-dustin]

http://www.autographsonline.com/Scans/dalyjohn07576.jpg

[Changleen]

The maximum adibatic combustion temp for JP-8 is 2300K. JP-8 is a military grade aviation fuel that contains higher amounts of corrosion inhibitors, anti-ice additives, lubricants and flash point reducers. The jetliners that hit the WTC were fueled with Jet A-1. I can't find the the MA for Jet A-1 but I do know that since Jet A-1 contains very little of the above listed additives and because it is a more pure fuel burns hotter.

Even if the fuel was burning at 1/2 of MA (maximum adibatic) the temp would be more than hot enough to degrade heat treatment on the sturctural members of the WTC.Haha, do you know what adiabatic means? You can't spell it. :dancing:

The temp you quote is the maximum theoretically possible, with zero heat loss to the surrounding environment (that's what abiabatic means) which also means there has to be a perfect supply of oxygen and, far more importantly, it has to be pressurised - The higher the pressure, the higher the MA. You've also neglected to quote the pressure at which that particular MA occurs. 2300°K would mean about 5 atmospheres I'd say off the top of my head. It can get considerably higher than that a higher pressures. Admit it, you just googled for that and have demonstrated you don't properly understand it.

Anyway, neither of those situations apply at all in the fires in the WTC towers. Kerosene burning in normal air can reach a maximum temperature of nearly 800°C. In the WTC fires, we see a lot of black smoke, that indicates it was not burning at maximum efficiency. Unsurprising as the fire was largely contained within the building. Several sources estimate the fire to be burning at 550°F - 600°F, which is considerably below the 1100°F forging temperature of steel and a whole ****load below the nearly 2700°F melting point (for a regular structural grade).

Chang, you really ought to get your info from people who know what they are talking about in regard to this stuff rather than from crackpot internet conspiracy theorists. It is your "blind belief structure" based on nonsense provided by wacko's that is the real danger here.Bwahahaha - I have a degree in materials enginnering from Brunel university in London.

Edit - Please excuse, the temps are °F not °C. Corrupted by my time in the states.

[Damn True]

Oh, by the way....in a follow up to my post on the last page in which I listed the maximum adibatic burn tempreture of JP-8 at 2300k (to which Chang has not responded) .......structural steel melts at about 1600k.

[$tinkle]

Umm, a few things -

1) That's not a video, it's a series of stills.
2) Where's the plane? I don't see a plane. I certainly don't see it hit the lawn and then the pentagon as you claim
3) The date is wrong...
4) The colour of the explosion appears significantly different from the ones at the twin towers.1) checkmate?
2) who can argue with this?
3) i'm pretty sure the september 11th attacks did happen on 9/11 (you're doing that silly euro switch-the-month-and-day thing again)
4) adjust your monitor

i read all over your amusingly purile link (i do hope you don't write webpages that shoddy -- right scrolling???), and would like to respond from the authority of a layperson to the seven Q's axed:

1) without providing any physical characterstics whatsoever, who can begin to assert - to say nothing of conclude - anything from 2 very distant overhead shots?

2) both photos obscure the ground prior to the building. additionally, a plane is not a cube; when it is "14.9 yrds high", that's the top of the tail for a width of a few feet (when looking straight on, as planes tend to fly)

3) this question implies there should be absolutely discernable flotsam from a photo taken intra-immolation at ~400 yds; but this gets snagged up in the assertion applied in Q 1: that the craft should be farther into the building. What's that you just posted: "you can't have it both ways"

4) the pentagon is next to a tidal basin, & essentially at sea-level. You go driving heavy equipment on grass just above sea-level, and you're not gonna be going anywhere after a few runs. It becomes a mud-bog. stop & look at a construction site sometime. while you're there, ask for an app.

5) as i stated yesterday, you cannot come to expect an object shaped hole from an object with non-uniform characteristics (density, hardness, failure rate, pliability, etc.). Watch much wile e. coyote?

6) credence is given to the fire chief's testimony, but at the cost of question 3. Moreover, please make the effort to understand that fuselages aren't infinitely hard stamped steel.

7) don't have x-ray filter loaded on mozilla yet (it's still in beta), so i can't tell you what's behind all the smoke in the picture. It may well be karl rove ripping up pieces of the koran and throwing it into the crash site, eh?

i must say, i did like the way it wrapped up nicely with this black-helo quote:
Was the world trade center about to collapse anyway, due to the bomb that went off in the late '90s, or perhaps a virus was unleashed into the ventilation system of the World Trade Center that was so devastating that the only way to contain it was destroying the buildings. Perhaps the planes were infected too and also had to be destroyed. Remember the anthrax scare. Perhaps this virus was developed in a laboratory in the Pentagon. Perhaps it had to be destroyed? Perhaps someone on one of the infected planes mailed something? Perhaps? Bin Laden worked for the CIA perhaps he still does? Perhaps I'll be found in the woods too? Perhaps.the author clearly does not know fact one about air-handling, airline logistics, payload, and most likely isn't yet potty-trained.

i see below (in prev mode) that the pig-piling has started in earnest.

:oink: :oink: :oink:

[Changleen]

BTW, as to your question about missing aircraft parts at the pentagon (Various Images)...None of which are large enough to have come from the plane in question. Come on, look at the 'structural support' or the 'gas genarator rotor' (sic - I think you mean turbine hub) - both are WAY to small to come from a Boeing.

[Damn True]

Haha, do you know what adiabatic means? You can't spell it. :dancing:

The temp you quote is the maximum theoretically possible, with zero heat loss to the surrounding environment (that's what abiabatic means) which also means there has to be a perfect supply of oxygen and, far more importantly, it has to be pressurised - The higher the pressure, the higher the MA. You've also neglected to quote the pressure at which that particular MA occurs. 2300°K would mean about 5 atmospheres I'd say off the top of my head. It can get considerably higher than that a higher pressures. Admit it, you just googled for that and have demonstrated you don't properly understand it.

Anyway, neither of those situations apply at all in the fires in the WTC towers. Kerosene burning in normal air can reach a maximum temperature of nearly 800°C. In the WTC fires, we see a lot of black smoke, that indicates it was not burning at maximum efficiency. Unsurprising as the fire was largely contained within the building. Several sources estimate the fire to be burning at 550°C - 600°C, which is considerably below the 1100°C forging temperature of steel and a whole ****load below the nearly 2700°C melting point (for a regular structural grade).

Bwahahaha - I have a degree in materials enginnering from Brunel university in London.


Blah blah blah..... I know ex****ingzactly what I'm talking about and I am referancing a USAF aircraft fire control manual printed in 1997. Which is why I mentioned that even if the stuff was burning at only 1/2 of MA it would still be more than hot enough to destroy the heat treating of the structural steel if not melt it completely.

...and typical structural steel melts at about 1600-1700k

as for your several sources.....most likely the same wackjobs that you are getting the rest of your crap info from.

[$tinkle]

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/fotos/tyson.jpg

[Changleen]

The stuff on that site is rubbish.What, actual photos of the actual incident straight after it happened? :p

[Changleen]

Blah blah blah..... I know ex****ingzactly what I'm talking about and I am referancing a USAF aircraft fire control manual printed in 1997. Which is why I mentioned that even if the stuff was burning at only 1/2 of MA it would still be more than hot enough to destroy the heat treating of the structural steel if not melt it completely.

...and typical structural steel melts at about 1600-1700k

as for your several sources.....most likely the same wackjobs that you are getting the rest of your crap info from.So how come you knew nothing about the pressure component? How come you would even equate such conditions to the actual kerosene burning in free air situation that existed. You're full of **** dude.

[Damn True]

None of which are large enough to have come from the plane in question. Come on, look at the 'structural support' or the 'gas genarator rotor' (sic - I think you mean turbine hub) - both are WAY to small to come from a Boeing.

No, I mean gas genarator. The gas generator is at the rear of a turbofan engine, downstream of the combustion chamber which is downstream of the compressor assembly. The gas generator drives the fan at the front of the turbofan engine and the engine accesories.

You have no idea what you are talking about Chang. I spent eleven years in and around all manner of aircraft. I am a licensed aircraft mechanic, I can fly a helipoter, I have been to USAF aircraft crash investigation school and have taken part in the investigation of the crashes of ten different aircraft (shall I list them?)

[Damn True]

What, actual photos of the actual incident straight after it happened? :p

No the crackpot theories spouted by the people who put that rubbish site together and nutjobs like you who have no freakin idea what they are talking about.

[Changleen]

No, I mean gas genarator. The gas generator is at the rear of a turbofan engine, downstream of the combustion chamber which is downstream of the compressor assembly. The gas generator drives the fan at the front of the turbofan engine and the engine accesories.

You have no idea what you are talking about Chang. I spent eleven years in and around all manner of aircraft. I am a licensed aircraft mechanic, I can fly a helipoter, I have been to USAF aircraft crash investigation school and have investigated the crashes of ten different aircraft (shall I list them?)So you'll be able to explain where the nickle-based super-alloy turbofan blades got to then? Are they not the strongest component of any modern jet aircraft?

[Damn True]

Did that particular plane have the JT-8D engine, the CFM56-3 or CFM56-7?

Whats your point? Those are Boeing aircraft parts in the building and on the grounds surrounding it.

You clearly have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about here.
You are quoting sources that have no idea what they are talking about (wackjob internet conspiracy theorists).

I have attempted to educate you with actual fact concerning what really happens in aircraft accidents and you have refused to listen to any of it. Others have presented you with fact concerning structural failure and you have refused to listen to any of it. You continue to reply with one nonsense claim after another based on those same conspiracy theorists.

Done discussing this with you. If you wish to prattle on feel free to do so.

[Changleen]

Did that particular plane have the JT-8D engine, the CFM56-3 or CFM56-7?

Whats your point? Those are Boeing aircraft parts in the building and on the grounds surrounding it.

You clearly have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about here.
You are quoting sources that have no idea what they are talking about (wackjob internet conspiracy theorists).

I have attempted to educate you with actual fact concerning what really happens in aircraft accidents and you have refused to listen to any of it. Others have presented you with fact concerning structural failure and you have refused to listen to any of it. You continue to reply with one nonsense claim after another based on those same conspiracy theorists.

Done discussing this with you. If you wish to prattle on feel free to do so.
:nopity: Yup, I heard a lot of facts come out of your mouth, DT.

Here, lets' just do a count:

1) and typical structural steel melts at about 1600-1700k

Huh. That's it. Aside from that you simply dismiss anything you disagree with. You quote science you don't understand and clearly can't apply properly, and utterly ignore the main points of my argument. 10 out of 10 on the republican argument scale. Well done.

[Changleen]

Huh let me think a huge building right next to it collapsed - you think some rather large derbis from that rather large building damaged WTC 7, no to mention the fire Actually WTC7 is a block away. The buildings next to the main towers were left standing. The fires in WTC7 were 'minor' according fire fighters.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif

Hmm, looks a little like a controlled demolition, dontcha think?

[Changleen]

Sorry Sanjuro - Missed yours:
What is the temperature of Jet Fuel burning? What is the melting point of steel girders?a) In air, 550°F - 600°F. b) 2700°F

What is the weight of the top third of the Tower? How much weight is the bottom 2/3 of the Tower is design to hold up if you collapse the weight of the top third on it?Well, being as the towers were designed to survive hurricanes and actually the impact of the largest airliner in existance at the time of their manufacture, quite a lot. Secondly, do you really buy that the floor or floors in question failed completely uniformly, at the same fraction of a second, despite the fact that the planes didn't hit in the same fashion, or in the centre of the buildings in either case? How could this happen? Look at photos of the construction of WTC. It just doesn't add up. Thirdly, being as the bottom 2/3s were undamaged, why was the collapse speed so close to the acceleration due to gravity? The undamaged portion of the building would have at least slowed the collapse significantly, neither would have the concrete have been pulverised so completely.


What hit it? How much diesel fuel burnt before the collapse?Just some minor debris from the main impact. The building is a block away from the main towers. The buildings around it survived.

[Changleen]

Ok engineer, how hot does structural hot rolled steel have to burn for it to begin to loose it's strength characteristics? Steel doesn't 'burn' as such, at least not in this situation. It reaches it's forging temperature (when it can be deformed by impact) at 1100°F. Also, those floors were made up of I beams they were light weight trusses - so is more heat required or less heat to weaken a truss over an I beam of of similar weight bearing characteristics?The same temperature must be reached in both cases. It would take a smaller amount of energy to heat up a smaller volume of steel. However, if the temperature of the fire is below the softening temperature, a beam of any size will no somehow get 'hotter' than another. The observed fire, burning orange with black smoke (550-600°F) would not be hot enough to get the steel into such a state.

Proof: Google for the Madrid skyscraper fire, or the Venzuala (sic) fire. Both recent fires in steel framed skyscrapers. The Madrid blaze utterly consumed the building and reached far higher temperatures than those in the WTC. You can see the effects of beam weakening throughout the structure. The fire burned for 14 hours as a pose to the 1 + 2 hour fires in the WTCs and still stood.

See Mike's "pancake" comments.See my response.

[Damn True]

Sanjuro, the above is utter rubbish. For an explaination of how and why the buildings came down from people who know what they are talking about rather than conjecture from crackpots read the info on the links below.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/world_trade.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html


And contrary to what the tinfoil hat crowd would have you believe, the WTC collapse was not the first and only time that a large building collapsed due to fire.

In 1967, the largest convention center in the U.S., Chicago's McCormick Place, collapsed. The cause was a relatively small fire that started on the convention floor. The heat generated from the fire caused thermal distortions of the steel structure, which led to huge thermal stresses in the support and roof trusses. This was due to the non-uniform expansion of the beams and their rigid connections. The entire building was pulled down, internally, by these forces. As a result of a study of the collapse, many changes were made to the design and materials used in convention centers built since that time.

The collapse of WTC seven is attributed to fire reaching the three 10,000 gallon diesel tanks that were in the building to sustain the genarator system for the New York City Emergency Management Control Station housed therin. Huge lesson to be learned there on storing large amounts of fuel in a high rise.

[Changleen]

In 1967, the largest convention center in the U.S., Chicago's McCormick Place, collapsed. The cause was a relatively small fire that started on the convention floor. The heat generated from the fire caused thermal distortions of the steel structure, which led to huge thermal stresses in the support and roof trusses. This was due to the non-uniform expansion of the beams and their rigid connections. The entire building was pulled down, internally, by these forces. As a result of a study of the collapse, many changes were made to the design and materials used in convention centers built since that time.And the WTC towers were built in 1973 :p

The collapse of WTC seven is attributed to fire reaching the three 10,000 gallon diesel tanks that were in the building to sustain the genarator system for the New York City Emergency Management Control Station housed therin. Huge lesson to be learned there on storing large amounts of fuel in a high rise.Video and photos of the building certainly don't tie up with a 30,000 gallon diesel fire in the building. You'd think someone might have noticed that...

[Inclag]

Changleen it honestly hurts reading this after I just earned my degree in engineering. Granted, I didn't have a concentration in materials.

I'll try to make it simple
-Steel melts at about 2700F
-Jet fuel burns at around 1500F
-Steel loses around 50% strength at 1200F
-Extreme temp differential would have caused sagging and eventually breaking.

[Changleen]

Sanjuro, the above is utter rubbish. For an explaination of how and why the buildings came down from people who know what they are talking about rather than conjecture from crackpots read the info on the links below.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/world_trade.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
In which his analysis is refered to as a "back of an envelope' analysis :p and is based on the weak truss model which has been disproved by actual photos of the construction of the tower :p and he says the fire wouldn't have been enough to bring down the towers. Try again. You still have the huge questions to deal with:

How did the towers fall at just below the acceleration due to gravity without explosive assistance?

Where's your 30,000 gallon diesel fire in WTC7? In reality are there not just a few, small discrete fires on different floors?

What about the reports of explosions at the base of the towers shortly before they fell?

In the very first part of the collapse, before you can even notice the top of the tower start to move, fine concrete dust is generated as we see throughout the collapse. How did any pure collapse generate enough energy to utterly pulverise said concrete after fractions of a second or even before the main collapse was initiated without explosives?

[Damn True]

And the WTC towers were built in 1973 :p

Video and photos of the building certainly don't tie up with a 30,000 gallon diesel fire in the building. You'd think someone might have noticed that...




No, you are mistaken. The first tennants moved in early in 1970, the buildings were fully opened in 1973.

Construction began in 1966. Id guess they were designed sometime before that.

[Changleen]

Changleen it honestly hurts reading this after I just earned my degree in engineering. Granted, I didn't have a concentration in materials.

I'll try to make it simple
-Steel melts at about 2700F
-Jet fuel burns at around 1500FNot if you just pour it on the ground and light it, it doesn't. Note the black sooty smoke and orange flame in the WTC fires. Not exactly a 1500°F fire eh?
-Steel loses around 50% strength at 1200F
-Extreme temp differential would have caused sagging and eventually breaking.What about after 57 minutes? The Madrid building stood for 14 hours in a far more intense and all consuming blaze. The fires were both largely out by the time the towers collasped.

[Damn True]

I'll take a "back of an envelope" analysis from a professor of materials engineering at MIT over internet conspiracy theorists, including you, any day.

[Changleen]

I'll take a "back of an envelope" analysis from a professor of materials engineering at MIT over internet conspiracy theorists, including you, any day.Thanks for answering all my questions, DT. Well played. Still not found a photo of WTC7 on fire from 30,000 Gallons of fuel? There are plenty out there...

Here's one taken at 3pm:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_3pm.jpg

I guess the fire pretty much out by then and they'd managed to get in and reglaze all the lower floors.

[Changleen]

I'll take a "back of an envelope" analysis from a professor of materials engineering at MIT over internet conspiracy theorists, including you, any day.Even when the major assumption it is based on is wrong?

Here are the Trusses as described by the FEMA report, as you will note placed in one direction only in order to support their expansion theory:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/plan-double-trusses.gif

And here is a photo of the actual building during construction:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/south-zoom.jpg

As you can clearly see top centre and bottom right, the trusses run in both directions. And just look at how much steel the core is constructed from! It's girder central. Can you seriously look at that and give much credance to the 'pancake' theory? I could believe it if maybe the core remained standing, but even supposing the FEMA drawing was correct, and the 'unsupported' floor areas did collapse, how did they pull down the centre?

According to another qualified engineer (DT - read: conspiricy nutjob) The "truss theory", if accepted, leads to a 33 percent underestimate of the amount of steel in the towers. That is, the truss theory does not account for the whereabouts of 32,000 tons of steel (of 96,000 tons) used in the construction of each of the towers.

[Changleen]

Another look at the core exposed during construction:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_core.jpg
That's a LOT of steel to collapse and offer no resistance.

[sanjuro]

Here is another question... How much dynamite would be required to blow up the support columns of the WTC? 100 lbs? 1000 lbs? How do you sneak this up to the exact location where the planes hit? With Tyler Durden and Robert Paulsen's help?

[Damn True]

Ok genius, what DID bring those towers down?

Most theories seem to assert that there was some sort of explosive catylyst for the buildings falling. Are you in agreement with that?

Keep in mind while you are thinking about this that the world record thus far for an explosive building demolition is a building of 2.7 million sq. feet which took 12,000lbs of explosives.
The WTC towers were roughly 10 million sq. feet each . How exactly would one move that amount of explosives into a building as public as the WTC, and do all of the prep work to drop the building completely undetected.

[syadasti]

Here is another question... How much dynamite would be required to blow up the support columns of the WTC? 100 lbs? 1000 lbs? How do you sneak this up to the exact location where the planes hit? With Tyler Durden and Robert Paulsen's help?

I'm not in a position to analyze these theories, but they have better more modern explosives than plain old TNT these days. Demo teams use special small charges designed to cut steel in their jobs...

[Damn True]

More stuff from people that make sense as opposed to wacky conspiracy theorists.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/collapse-of-the-world-trade-center
http://www.continuitycentral.com/news01832.htm
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0515/news_1-1.html
http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=040805021055
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7236

[MMike]

Oh my god Chang.... I just can't even understand what it must be like dealing with you in real life.

I don't even remember what your original point was. You're saying that the planes hit, then the gov't secret agents ran in, rigged both towers with explosives, and blew them up?

[clancy98]

Not especially. You really aren't as clever as you think you are, you know...

wanna keep going mr last word?

and I may not be as clever as I think I am, but I'm MUCH more clever than you are

[$tinkle]

wanna keep going mr last word?

and I may not be as clever as I think I am, but I'm MUCH more clever than you aredoes somebody need a body massage (http://media.ebaumsworld.com/gijoebodymassage.mov)?

{{{ eHugs }}}

[valve bouncer]

does somebody need a body massage (http://media.ebaumsworld.com/gijoebodymassage.mov)?

{{{ eHugs }}}
Come on big fella, he tore you a new one but at least keep it in the same thread. ;)

[clancy98]

Well, unfortunately I was unable to see yet another classic punchline from the $tink. Its probably something you ****ed up, because you are a failure.

But anyways, I guess I'll take a massage if you promise a happy ending. Here, I'll get you a towel.

[Damn True]

Oh my god Chang.... I just can't even understand what it must be like dealing with you in real life.

I don't even remember what your original point was. You're saying that the planes hit, then the gov't secret agents ran in, rigged both towers with explosives, and blew them up?

They must have used super ninja powers to do it in less than 45 minutes. vs the months it normally takes to prep a building, do test blasts, install cables to control inward collapse etc.

Furthermore, apparently there was a missile that hit the pentagon then the gov't secret agents ran around sprinkling fake airplane parts too and fro. But according to Chang, those aren't the right parts to be parts from a Boeing.

[clancy98]

no they were setting that stuff up weeks before. Dont you know how long ago Bush started planning all this? They just didn't tell anyone what all the extra rigging was for. The Sheeple, blinded by the evil Haliburton Superpower!

[Damn True]

You can't be serious.

[valve bouncer]

Chango mate, you've done well here mate, made me think for sure and that's good. I've looked at ya links and the ones the frothers have countered with but I'm sorry mate the towers were brought down by those planes flying into them. Does the US govt know more than they are willing to admit? For absolutely sure but even with my BS radar on full alert I can't go with you here son. They are bullsh*t artists par supreme and we should keep trying to hold them to account but I think you're barking up the wrong pole here mate. Having said that though, I'm still listening.

[Damn True]

http://acw.loudeye.com/protec/protec071700.ram

Video of an actual explosive demolition. Now this is only a 20 story building. Take note of the degree of prep work done on the building. How much material is removed prior to the demolition. Pay attention to when the guy says that nearly 1500 holes were drilled in the structure to weaken it.

[clancy98]

hey DT. people were busy in the WTC, you coudln't hardly expect them to notice EVERYTHING, especially small stuff like thousands and thousands of holes and huge parts of the structure being removed.

[Damn True]

VB,
I think the question that has not been asked enough is why clues to the impending attack were not investigated. I fear that the reasons for that might be similar to the resistance we are seeing against the current investigation of the group in Lodi, CA. There are those in and outside the govt who claim that "well they haven't done anything illegal" and "we aren't aware of a specific target" absolves them from detention and serious investigation. Documents are showing that this is a similar tack taken with the group that orchestrated the attacks on 9/11. My hope is that the law enforcement community has learned from history and thus prevents repeating it.

[valve bouncer]

VB,
I think the question that has not been asked enough is why clues to the impending attack were not investigated. I fear that the reasons for that might be similar to the resistance we are seeing against the current investigation of the group in Lodi, CA. There are those in and outside the govt who claim that "well they haven't done anything illegal" and "we aren't aware of a specific target" absolves them from detention and serious investigation. Documents are showing that this is a similar tack taken with the group that orchestrated the attacks on 9/11. My hope is that the law enforcement community has learned from history and thus prevents repeating it.
Hindsight is 20/20 True. What we can't do though, and this is where you and me part company I think, is to ascribe motives to people who haven't done anything yet. You want to ,and I can see where you guys are coming from but at this stage, more than ever, we must absolutely say innocent until proven guilty. We must play by the rules absolutely, without question because that's what we have. The rule of law, this idea that the prosecution must prove without a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty of the crimes they are acussed of. If you, the frothers, are so sure they are guilty, then put all your evidence up into a properly constituted court of law and take your chances...after all that's what America is all about, right? Don't hide them away in Cuba, guilty or not, put them here where all can see, be completely transperent.

[Damn True]

Hindsight is 20/20 True. What we can't do though, and this is where you and me part company I think, is to ascribe motives to people who haven't done anything yet. You want to ,and I can see where you guys are coming from but at this stage, more than ever, we must absolutely say innocent until proven guilty. We must play by the rules absolutely, without question because that's what we have. The rule of law, this idea that the prosecution must prove without a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty of the crimes they are acussed of. If you, the frothers, are so sure they are guilty, then put all your evidence up into a properly constituted court of law and take your chances...after all that's what America is all about, right? Don't hide them away in Cuba, guilty or not, put them here where all can see, be completely transperent.

No disagreement from me on this one. But all I'm saying is ferchrisakes, don't fail to investigate somone like the group in Lodi simply because you aren't aware of a specific target. When investigators got word of the 9/11 crew they didn't move on it because they weren't aware of a specific target. We ought not wait for another attack to launch an investigation.

That said, you are correct in that there must be a case for prosecution. But probable cause is certainly there to allow for investigation don't you think?

[Toshi]

That said, you are correct in that there must be a case for prosecution. But probable cause is certainly there to allow for investigation don't you think?
there is a great gap between investigation, public smearing/propaganda, and long term incarceration without notification of charges or having charges brought.

[steelewheels]

All's I know is something reallly fvcking stinks... You cant spell believe without lie and so on with snappy quotes.

The planes may have knocked down the towers, im no degree type internet jockey. The entire thing is just way too much for me to bite off. Now how did hitler come to power? Burning down the parliment building claiming it was those pesky commies. Im scared of what else is to come in my lifetime, will i have to pick up arms in a unjust war? I read a report today about over a thousand chinese spies in canada. Maybe im just super paranoid about the path that has been made since 9/11.

Lets face it all, humankind is fuct. Fist fuct by our own...

[steelewheels]

And i know MLB is spying on me right now!!!! gotta get the tinfoil.....

[Changleen]

Oh my god Chang.... I just can't even understand what it must be like dealing with you in real life.Ah, I'm pretty normal when you meet me in person. :D This is just the highly argumentative internet me.
I don't even remember what your original point was. You're saying that the planes hit, then the gov't secret agents ran in, rigged both towers with explosives, and blew them up?No, I'm just saying there is so much more going on here than the Gov is telling you about. I have no idea what actually happened, but I'm telling you that 20 Saudis didn't just hijack 4 planes and get real ****ing lucky to the point that physics bent for them. Other **** was occuring. Whatever anyone says, there are fundamental issues with the plane induced collapse theory put forward by the government which people are understandably unwilling to challenge.

However, those towers should in no way have fallen as fast as they did. It's imposible without some kind of assistance. The government is also plain lying about what happened to WTC7. Again, I don't actually know why or how. I can tell you though that WTC7 didn't collapse under it's own steam.

With regard to the Pentagon thing, if the boeing really did hit it, why have the gov confiscated all the video of it? Why won't they release any of it? Even one version? The 4 frames of webcam footage they have released don't even show a plane.

Why was all the steel wreckage removed from ground zero so fast, the huge majority of it without even a look at it?

Why was over ten times the amount of cash spent on investigation Clinton's cigar thing than 9/11, the most fundamental historical event since the world wars?

All I'm saying is, there are many many questions unanswered about 9/11. DT, thanks for those links, I have read a lot of them, but in every case without fail there is some oversight, or ignoring of some facet of evidence, or simple blind assumption which opens a huge hole in these explanations. I'm not saying these 'conspiricy nuts' have all the answers, but they DO HAVE so very good questions which need to be answered, and not just ignored by people like you. You can't just believe what you're being told when so many questions remain. I appreciate that you are trying to answer these for yourself and for us, but I'm sorry, these expanations just don't cut it when compared to what I see with my own eyes.

Maybe there is a good reason why a series of explosions were reported at the foot of the towers before they fell. Maybe there is a logical explanation, but until the government, especailly this one with it clear record of lies, half truths and spin, and indifference to the lives of so many people gets off it's ass and makes a serious effort to explain these issues, many people are going to remain deeply suspicious about their reasons and motives.

Without 9/11 there would be no basis for the war on terror or for GW to persue the agenda he has. For such a huge event to occur, and for some many unanswered questions to remain about it, and for so many people to die because of it, is wrong. They lied about Iraq, 150,000 died. They ignore Africa, thousands die unneccassarily. They blatently support vicious dictatorships whilst espousing democracy and freedom. Whatever angle you look at it from they lie and cheat and people die. To manipulate the American people with the deaths of 3000 to forward their agenda is well within the realms of their attrocities. Failure to question the glaring holes in their story is wrong and, frankly unpatriotic.

[$tinkle]

update from TAMU: (http://www.tamu.edu/00/start/DrGates-statement.html)The following is a statement from Texas A&M University regarding recent news reports about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds is retired from Texas A&M University, but holds the title of Professor Emeritus-an honorary title bestowed upon select tenured faculty, who have retired with ten or more years of service. Additionally, contrary to some written reports, while some faculty emeriti are allocated office space at Texas A&M, Dr. Reynolds does not have an office on the Texas A&M campus. Any statements made by Dr. Reynolds are in his capacity as a private citizen and do not represent the views of Texas A&M University. Below is a statement released yesterday by Dr. Robert M. Gates, President of Texas A&M University:

"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale.”where "goes beyond the pale" is a euphemism for "unpatriotic"

[genpowell71]

Where did the statement come from? Texas A&M university.

Where is Dubya from? Tex-ass if I remember correctly.

Tex-ass is not some place that I'd listen to anything much about probush rhetoric.

[$tinkle]

any proper engineers care to chime in as to why annealing is never discussed in this thread?

it's important enough for engineering consideration for construction; shouldn't it also be part of this debate?

[MMike]

any proper engineers care to chime in as to why annealing is never discussed in this thread?

it's important enough for engineering consideration for construction; shouldn't it also be part of this debate?

Anealing is a stress reliever. Bend a steel bar back and forth a few times, it begins to fatigue. But if you anneal it, the molecules/crystals realign themselves back to (close to anyway) their orignial state thus "un-fatiguing" it.......more or less anyway........ also, annealing will un-heat-treat stuff too, (which is what I alluded to earlier)

I still maintain that the fire would be plenty hot to weaken the structure enough to send it crashing down....as we saw happen on llive TV.

[Changleen]

I still maintain that the fire would be plenty hot to weaken the structure enough to send it crashing down....as we saw happen on llive TV.Which we also saw on live TV - The fire had a deep orange flame and black sooty smoke indicating it wasn't that hot.

[-dustin]

100!1!

[Changleen]

100!1!Crazy eh? And this is the 3rd time we've had this argument.

[genpowell71]

QUICK, another dead horse, lets beat it some more!!!

[Changleen]

You can still recognise that it's a horse? Even with all the flesh gone and half of it missing?

[MMike]

Yep....and all the computers, and carpet and water coolers and vending machines and light fixtures and paint and wallpaper and cubicles...they were all burning stoichiometrically. They couldn't possibly have contributed to the black smoke......

And I believe "stoichiometric" was the word you guys were looking for when you were throwing around "adiabatic" the other day...

[$tinkle]

Yep....and all the computers, and carpet and water coolers and vending machines and light fixtures and paint and wallpaper and cubicles...they were all burning stoichiometrically. They couldn't possibly have contributed to the black smoke......

And I believe "stoichiometric" was the word you guys were looking for when you were throwing around "adiabatic" the other day...you use your mouth purtier than a $20 whore.

[MMike]

That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me....

[Damn True]

Stoichiometric or Theoretical Combustion is the ideal combustion process during which a fuel is burned completely. A complete combustion is a process which burns all the carbon (C) to (CO2), all hydrogen (H) to (H2O) and all sulfur (S) to (SO2). If there are unburned components in the exhaust gas such as C, H2, CO the combustion process is uncompleted

An adiabatic process is one in which no heat is gained or lost by the system. The first law of thermodynamics with Q=0 shows that all the change in internal energy is in the form of work done. This puts a constraint on the heat engine process leading to the adiabatic condition shown below. This condition can be used to derive the expression for the work done during an adiabatic process.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/imgheat/adiab.gif

[MMike]

BLA BLA BLA

And??

[Damn True]

And??

Merely pointing out that you were correct.

[clancy98]

thats very unmonkeylike of you

[MMike]

Merely pointing out that you were correct.

I never need to be told that. I'm ALWAYS right remember?

[Damn True]

I never need to be told that. I'm ALWAYS right remember?

How about we comprimise here.

Often wrong but seldom in doubt seems a better fit. :p

[Changleen]

How about we comprimise here.

Often wrong but seldom in doubt seems a better fit. :pWe're talking about Mike, not you.

[N8]

...sky is falling!


http://www.hallucinaut.com/foilhats/signs.jpg

[genpowell71]

Would someone please tell damn true that its spelled C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-S-E