5 of 5
5
Materials scientist explains Twin Towers collapse
Posted: 28 September 2011 11:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
psikeyhackr - 24 September 2011 03:50 PM

Burning requires OXYGEN.  in a NORMAL FIRE the only source is the air.  How can it reach those temperatures without a good air supply.

What makes you think the fire didn’t have a good air-supply?  There was air all around NYC and the Towers that day?  Gosh!  I think people were in those buildings breathing air every day!
I don’t recall people going to work there with SCUBA gear.
Fire just naturally sucks air into it!  Just like the fire-bombings of Dresden and Hamburg.  Large, high temperature fires in the cities core, winds of up to 200 m.p.h. sucking into the city!
Yeah! Well documented.  I’m pretty sure there was air up there that day…a pretty good unlimited supply!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 02:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10

How does a wood fire oven keep burning while at the same time trapping heat? It’s really not that magical

psik’s point about the aluminum needing to have some sort of container is a good one - I thought of that problem too - but maybe it did have some sort of container. Maybe the top half of the fuselage melted into the bottom half, then when the bottom half melted it released all the liquid aluminum at once. If the liquid aluminum was at a high enough temperature, it would be able to stay in liquid form for longer (will not solidify immediately), increasing the chances it runs into some water.

So the sequence of events sounds like this: plane hits building, sprinklers go off, sprinklers run out, fire liquefies aluminum, liquid aluminum pours out onto the lower floors, triggering fires and sprinklers and thus explosions and collapse. The collapse causes breaks in more sprinkler systems, releasing more water, which comes into contact with more liquid aluminum and causes more explosions. This theory makes a lot of sense to me. Psik, your response?

NIST didn’t find evidence of temperatures that high. Okay, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - IOW, they could have just missed it. Is there any chance of that?

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 03:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
domokato - 28 September 2011 02:14 PM

How does a wood fire oven keep burning while at the same time trapping heat? It’s really not that magical

Does the oven have its exhaust blocked so the exhaust can’t escape?  That is what I was responding to.  Someone was saying the heat could be trapped that way.  It would also create back pressure to keep fresh air from coming in to feed the fire.

psik’s point about the aluminum needing to have some sort of container is a good one - I thought of that problem too - but maybe it did have some sort of container. Maybe the top half of the fuselage melted into the bottom half, then when the bottom half melted it released all the liquid aluminum at once. If the liquid aluminum was at a high enough temperature, it would be able to stay in liquid form for longer (will not solidify immediately), increasing the chances it runs into some water.

The radius of the fuselage was 17 feet.  The floors in the tower were 12 feet apart surface to surface.  So the fuselage had to hit at least one 600 ton concrete slab edge on at 400 plus mph.  Those planes had to be shredded to pieces.  The shredded fuel tanks would send fuel flying all over the place.  The fuselage had to be ripped apart.  So these speculations based on made up scenarios that contradict easily available data are absurd.

The people who have chosen to believe the official story have not investigated enough to get the information to shoot holes in silly speculations.  Of course anybody that does that is a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 03:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
VYAZMA - 28 September 2011 10:56 AM
psikeyhackr - 28 September 2011 08:04 AM
VYAZMA - 28 September 2011 07:52 AM

This is your link.  It provides a you-tube video with a title that references a Danish Scientist and nano-thermite!
You use links like this the same way you did with your “crop circle” buggery!
Little nuanced hints meant to foster mysterious, underworld notions. The “soup de jour” of conspiracy theorists!

So what did I SAY about thermite.

psik

Why did you reference this video?

To provide people with a source of information TO EVALUATE.  I have this unfortunate weakness of expecting people to be able to think for themselves.  You do an excellent job of demonstrating the errors of my ways.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 03:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
psikeyhackr - 28 September 2011 03:20 PM

psik’s point about the aluminum needing to have some sort of container is a good one - I thought of that problem too - but maybe it did have some sort of container. Maybe the top half of the fuselage melted into the bottom half, then when the bottom half melted it released all the liquid aluminum at once. If the liquid aluminum was at a high enough temperature, it would be able to stay in liquid form for longer (will not solidify immediately), increasing the chances it runs into some water.

The radius of the fuselage was 17 feet.  The floors in the tower were 12 feet apart surface to surface.  So the fuselage had to hit at least one 600 ton concrete slab edge on at 400 plus mph.  Those planes had to be shredded to pieces.  The shredded fuel tanks would send fuel flying all over the place.  The fuselage had to be ripped apart.  So these speculations based on made up scenarios that contradict easily available data are absurd.

Okay, so it was ripped apart. But is it so hard to believe that U-shaped objects might still be laying around that can collect liquid aluminum in them? I think that’s hardly absurd

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 03:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05

Sh!t, I keep doing that.

That is supposed to be DIAMETER of the fuselage.  Sorry!

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2011 07:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2416
Joined  2007-07-05
domokato - 28 September 2011 03:32 PM

Okay, so it was ripped apart. But is it so hard to believe that U-shaped objects might still be laying around that can collect liquid aluminum in them? I think that’s hardly absurd

BELIEF is stupid by definition.

The objective is to understand and analyze.

The floor on top would be a smooth surface but there would be furniture and false walls.

The bottom would be trusses supporting the concrete floor.  So even assuming the fuselage was split in half for simplicities sake the two halves would be on different levels separated by the floor and probably would not be in line with each other.  The top could not melt into the bottom. 

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2011 09:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10

The bottom would be trusses supporting the concrete floor.  So even assuming the fuselage was split in half for simplicities sake the two halves would be on different levels separated by the floor and probably would not be in line with each other.  The top could not melt into the bottom.

I was thinking more like bathrooms and fuel tanks - containers. And even debris/wreckage that happened to fall into U-shaped arrangements.

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 5
5