Wtc 7

[palerider]

I am asking you Mr palerider................how many years do you have working with Air Frames? and How many years working with Powerplants? And aviation jet fuel?

None. Although I do posess two degrees in the hard sciences and know what I am talking about.

"there is absolutely NO-WAY that an aluminum and aluminum substrate airframe was able to "Slice" through the center of the wtc towers PERIOD"

"there is NO physical possibility that they would have sliced through the central support columns of the WTC."

No way huh? Unlike you, when I don't know a thing, I refer to people whose job it is to know that thing rather than simply make it up as I go. that is the difference between an educated person and a blowhard. In this case, I refer to the engineering department at Purdue University. As you watch this video, pay special attention to the support beams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

 

[dahermit]

Originally Posted by dahermit
I think that you have confused Magnesium with Aluminum. They are similar in appearance, both very light weight. But, Magnesium burns with an intense bright light, whereas Aluminum just melts. Powdered Magnesium is used in "Thermite" bombs and "flash powder." Did you misspeak?

No. If I had ment to say magnesium, I would have said magnesium and noted a temperature of about 2900 degrees. Aluminum burns quite easily at the temperatures associated with airline crashes. Ample evidence of this has been seen in previous crashes.

Having melted Aluminum with a cutting torch, I am still inclined to think that Aluminum does not burn. Would you please provide a citation that indicates that Aluminum does indeed burn?

 

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Maybe you don't understand the concept of pressure. If I take a piece of steel girder like the support columns in the towers and stand it up and build a fire of equal heat and duration around it, it may or may not distort. We know that the fire from fuel and the building and office materials as a result of the crash were not sufficient to cause the steel to fail. I have not seen any of the consipiracies deal with the fact that burning aluminum greatly increases the temprature of any fire, but that is for later.

OK. I have this piece of steel girder standing up and know that the heat I can produce isn't going to cause it to fail. BUT. What if I put a load on it. If I put my girder between a concrete foundation and a hydraulic press and simulate the weight of the upper floors that it was designed to support and add additional weight that it must bear because its fellow supports were destroyed in the crash, it is going to take less heat and a shorter duration to fatigue the metal and cause it to fail.

Demonstrate to me that the heat and the nominal load on the beams plus the additional load placed on them by the failure of other supports taken out due to the crash were not enough to cause the remaining beams to fail and you have an argument. In your search for this data, be sure that the fact of burning aluminum is also factored in.

Aluminum ignites fairly easily and we have seen it burn freely in other airline crashes. Aluminum, once ignited burns at a temperature of over 5000 degrees. That is about 2/3 the temperature of the surface of the sun while steel begins to deform at temperatures of less than 1500 degrees.

Prove to me that there was not enough heat and pressure to cause the beams to fail.

You prove that there was enough heat. I don't believe there was. Nor do I believe that the planes cut through all the support columns.

 

[KeepOurFreedoms]

None. Although I do posess two degrees in the hard sciences and know what I am talking about.



No way huh? Unlike you, when I don't know a thing, I refer to people whose job it is to know that thing rather than simply make it up as I go. that is the difference between an educated person and a blowhard. In this case, I refer to the engineering department at Purdue University. As you watch this video, pay special attention to the support beams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

Hello....................that isn't real...........it is a cartoon.

 

[palerider]

Having melted Aluminum with a cutting torch, I am still inclined to think that Aluminum does not burn. Would you please provide a citation that indicates that Aluminum does indeed burn?

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16246270

Note: Due to the amount of liquid oxygen (LOX) carried on the airliner, the immediate area around the crash would be considered an oxygen rich environment.

http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=japaperimportPre97&gID=23902

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713728655~db=all

http://www.springerlink.com/content/y26263167271p937/

 

[palerider]

You prove that there was enough heat. I don't believe there was. Nor do I believe that the planes cut through all the support columns.

It makes little difference what you believe. Facts are facts. Go argue with the engineering department at purdue. Of course, they aren't the only ones who have reached the same result.

Aluminum burns more than 2000 degress hotter than the heat necessary to cause the failure of steel under pressure. Add liquid oxygen to the mixture and only a dolt would suggest that there wasn't enough heat to cause the steel to fail.

 

[palerider]

Hello....................that isn't real...........it is a cartoon.

Jack Herer is a cartoon. Scientific simulations constitute valid science these days. Sorry you missed that.

 

[dahermit]

Oxygen rich atmosphere.

Yes, inasmuch as there could have been an oxygen rich environment at the World Trade Center, under that condition, Aluminum would indeed burn as does steel (cutting torch). You are correct in that context.

FYI to those who say the fire at the WTC could not have caused the building to collapse because it would not have been hot enough to melt steel (2700 deg. F), some types of steel due to high carbon content have the property of "hot shortness" which means that the steel will actually crumble when hot. Even if the structural steel was not of the high carbon type, it becomes soft long before it reaches its melting temperature.

 

[jb_1430]

Not to mention that steel loses half its strength at 1000F.

 

[Abraxis Axis]

None.
I know what I am talking about.

Fairly well sums this end of things up dosent it?.....................NONE says it ALL I am also telling you as has politico mutt has theres NO way an airframe was able to penetrate the core structure of the towers.......
I AM CURRENTLY in the aviation field



No way huh? Unlike you, when I don't know a thing, I refer to people whose job it is to know that thing rather than simply make it up as I go. that is the difference between an educated person and a blowhard. In this case, I refer to the engineering department at Purdue University. As you watch this video, pay special attention to the support beams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

OHHHHH you mean you like to provide us with Computer simulations, or "cartoons", as one poster put it,as your theory of some kind of proof to the contrary of what Politico mutt had posted? Interesting cartoon there pale rider, the un-fortunate thing is that it is a total misrepresentation of the core building structure???


Politico illustrated a scenario for you, that was from his "REAL LIFE" experience? Not some simulated computer cartoon. He tells a story of "PINE TREES", shredding aircraft like a cheese grater? And yet you proclaim somehow that the airframe defied the laws of logic, and physics, and plowed through the building, slicing the support columns as it went? Thats plain Bull%hit!!....It wouldn't happen that way, EVER period! I don't give a damn, what your comp gen, simulations shows..... Its a wildly INACCURATE depiction of the columns in the building.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

I also looked at a few of your links about the aluminum thing? The first a link about aluminum "WRAPPING" papers, and aluminum food containers ......nothing about structural aluminum from aircraft burning?

Second link? you have to buy a book to find about aluminum, and its burn characteristics

Obviously, after those 2 lame attempts at answering the questions. I didn't even bother, to see what drivel may have been contained in the other "links"!

 

[Abraxis Axis]

Jack Herer is a cartoon. Scientific simulations constitute valid science these days. Sorry you missed that.

did you collect your money yet?
F%ck NO you didnt cuz your a loser

 

[mustardayonnaise]

Even if the plane did slice through the core of the building, why did it fall down like a stack of pancakes and in so many small pieces? Surely the uneven initial pressure from the collapse would have made it fall to one side? Are we really to believe that steel beams running all the way up the centre of the building somehow fell in a sort of concertina-like manner? Exactly on top of themselves like a car aerial?

 

[palerider]

Yes, inasmuch as there could have been an oxygen rich environment at the World Trade Center, under that condition, Aluminum would indeed burn as does steel (cutting torch). You are correct in that context.

FYI to those who say the fire at the WTC could not have caused the building to collapse because it would not have been hot enough to melt steel (2700 deg. F), some types of steel due to high carbon content have the property of "hot shortness" which means that the steel will actually crumble when hot. Even if the structural steel was not of the high carbon type, it becomes soft long before it reaches its melting temperature.

Thank you. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

 

[palerider]

did you collect your money yet?
F%ck NO you didnt cuz your a loser

Like I said. Jack is a cartoon. Anyone who seriously references mad magazine in what he presents as a scholarly book simply couldn't be trusted to pay up on a challenge.

 

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Jack Herer is a cartoon. Scientific simulations constitute valid science these days. Sorry you missed that.

Sorry, can't buy into that one. Still waiting for real proof.