lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 14, 2006 23:44:30 GMT -4
Len...my age is IRRELEVANT...but I am older than you. The years since "9/11" have been both short and long...I just looked back again today...I can't believe all that time has passed so quickly and so slowly. If you really are older than I am you should be able to come up with a better argument than 'I saw it with my own untrianed eyes on TV and it looked like controlled demo to me therefore that's what it must have been', which is basiclly what you're saying. But you're right your age is basiclly irrelevant as long as you can cite solid evidence to back your beliefs. I made about 12 points in that post, why don't you try responding to the others?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jan 15, 2006 7:05:43 GMT -4
For steel to melt and stay molten requires continual heat, such as a fire. An (expensive) electric arc furnace is the usual method, although once the steel has been made from iron, there is no reason to melt it again: heating it to above the phase transition temperature (~900 oC) is enough.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jan 15, 2006 15:39:41 GMT -4
Kalpana Chawla was a friend of mine... You are claiming that is a fact?...OK, then, prove it. You "honor" her by insulting the board?? Some honor. HUH???Ignoring me changes nothing. Can you prove that you were Kalpana's "friend"...yes or no. If not then withdraw your claim. Simple as that...
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 16, 2006 15:09:35 GMT -4
Part of the confusion seems to be over the exact observed state of the substance and the words used to describe it. It is unclear whether witnesses claimed to have seen a substance then in its liquid state, or just a solid that simply showed signs of once having been melted and which had subsequently resolidifed.
There is also the question of what the substance was. A pool of had-been melted aluminum, say, wouldn't have been nearly as suspicious as a pool of had-been melted steel.
I can tell you one thing though: the source of heat required to keep a "pool of steel" melted in the open air would have spewed far too much radiant heat to make it possible for workers or inspectors to approach unprotected. You would have noticed the radiant heat before the molten steel.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jan 16, 2006 15:35:03 GMT -4
I can tell you one thing though: the source of heat required to keep a "pool of steel" melted in the open air would have spewed far too much radiant heat to make it possible for workers or inspectors to approach unprotected. You would have noticed the radiant heat before the molten steel. That's true: I suppose these days it's a very tiny minority of people who've actually been inside a steelworks ;D
|
|
|
Post by bughead on Jan 16, 2006 16:35:46 GMT -4
I've been thinking about this for quite a while. Could they have been talking about metal beams that were twisted up and LOOKED melted?
And what about blast-furnace effects of the upper floors shoving air ahead down thru stairwells and elevator shafts? All of a sudden, (okay, only for a few seconds, but think about your engine for a moment) there would have been a tremendous amount of air force-feeding whatever fires were on the lower floors. Old-fashioned blowtorches used kerosene (jet fuel) and related liquid fuels with compressed air to do some pretty intense work, not by increasing the burn-heat of the fuel, but by increasing the amount of fuel being burned per second.
Just a thought.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 16, 2006 16:55:12 GMT -4
Jay I thought you gave an explaination for this on the main 9-11 thread. IIRC it had something to do with corrosion. Part of the confusion seems to be over the exact observed state of the substance and the words used to describe it. It is unclear whether witnesses claimed to have seen a substance then in its liquid state, or just a solid that simply showed signs of once having been melted and which had subsequently resolidifed. There is also the question of what the substance was. A pool of had-been melted aluminum, say, wouldn't have been nearly as suspicious as a pool of had-been melted steel. I can tell you one thing though: the source of heat required to keep a "pool of steel" melted in the open air would have spewed far too much radiant heat to make it possible for workers or inspectors to approach unprotected. You would have noticed the radiant heat before the molten steel.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 29, 2006 17:04:29 GMT -4
Well, I just waded through this thread, saw the pix, read the reports. It seems a lot of folks here, knowing what they do about controlled demolition, are convinced WTC7 was such an event. I don't know much about CD, except that it's time consuming and exacting. Everything I've seen also indicates there is a LOT of building prep done. Tearing out internal walls, weakening (through removal or pre-cutting) internal structural members etc. The building that is left before the demolition charges blow is a very bare and weakened structure. This is part of the "controlled" thing. I have never heard of one where they simply "placed charges" and hit the button. ...or am I mistaken here? I also think that when the NYFD officer was talking to Mr Silverstein, he was very politely "telling" him what he was going to do, he's not going to jepardize his men any more than necessary. Silverstein was being "informed" of the situation. As for the collapses "looking" like CD, I agree. However, that doesn't mean they were. These were unprecedented collapses, under unprecedented conditions. I think anyone would be hard pressed to explain the collapse dynamics without a great deal of knowledge and a lot of research into those buildings, and not just going to "websites". Dave
Dave
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 29, 2006 21:02:34 GMT -4
Dang Dave, there's far to much logic in there for you to ever make a good CT.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Jan 29, 2006 21:26:40 GMT -4
I have no problem with buildings collapsing straight down. It is after all the shortest way.
Having something fall over would require more energy, to shift the centre of gravity away from the centreline.
|
|