WTC7: Did the fires burn long and hot enough?

Status
Not open for further replies.
When you only cherry pick something to get the answer you want, your conclusions will often be wrong
FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.
Content from External Source

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center

debunked, let's move on

Not only that but there were OTHER seismographs in the area and I notice that they are totally ignored. I wonder why?
 
debunked, let's move on

I agree. I had read different accounts of it but I think Tarpley was probably connecting dots that don't exist on that one. And that falsification undermines his theory. I don't believe that falsifications/verifications like this harm someone's credibility and so forth much. It seems to me that it's to a theorist's credit if whatever they're saying is open to some form of falsification.

It seems to me that Mick's idea that there were valid reasons to imagine the collapse of WTC 7 before it did so that people wound up reporting that it did collapse before it had in reality and so forth isn't an equivalent debunking or falsification.

It's also worth mentioning that it would seem that a lot of Mick's imaginary ideas about WTC 7 can't be falsified*, given that the information seems to have been classified in the name of public safety and so on and so forth.

*And therefore can't be verified either...
 
it would seem that a lot of Mick's imaginary ideas about WTC 7 can't be falsified
It may seem that way to you, but you've already admitted you can't find debunk material.

Even with truther video material, an engineer's eye can see how WTC7 fell. It helps, of course to turn off the sound and ignore any text, but there is plenty of material showing that all the buildings sagged out of shape and verticality, initiated their collapses silently, and that buckling was apparent in each collapse.

That is not imaginary. Anyone can see that all buildings were subject to these events.

I'll repeat that. Sagging prior to collapse, silent collapse, buckling after collapse.

You have to insist on imaginary heatproof radio-controlled thermite charges* for the silence, but the sagging before collapse and buckling after collapse you cannot explain away. Explosive charges do not produce these events.

* Which no truther feels the need to produce or even show how this is possible. Too much Star Trek and Star Wars, I think, has led some to believe that almost anything is possible.

Well beam me up, Scotty..
 
What about the 400 to 2800 degree hot spots under WTC 1,2 and 7 for months after? When buildings collapse do they get into temps of a smeltering factory?

They do if they're made of steel, and very tall. It's the remains of the potential energy (the energy put into them to lift them from ground zero).

Is this answer some kind of a joke?
 
Have seen Jazzy's calculations on that? If you had, you wouldn't be calling it a joke. You also need to remember that the buildings and their contents were on fire. That doesn't mean that all the fires were snuffed out, or that some didn't restart when they got more oxygen.

I would suggest that you read all the 9/11 threads. The explanation is there.
 
What about the 400 to 2800 degree hot spots under WTC 1,2 and 7 for months after? When buildings collapse do they get into temps of a smeltering factory?
They do if they're made of steel, and very tall. It's the remains of the potential energy (the energy put into them to lift them from ground zero).
Is this answer some kind of a joke?
There is a topic for that, somewhere. Best go there. :)
 
What about the 400 to 2800 degree hot spots under WTC 1,2 and 7 for months after? When buildings collapse do they get into temps of a smeltering factory?

They do if they're made of steel, and very tall. It's the remains of the potential energy (the energy put into them to lift them from ground zero).

Is this answer some kind of a joke?

Well lets try this again:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

http://enenews.com/gundersen-image-...ushima-reactor-3-exactly-containment-be-video

What about the 400 to 2800 degree hot spots under WTC 1,2 and 7 for months after? When buildings collapse do they get into temps of a smeltering factory?

They do if they're made of steel, and very tall. It's the remains of the potential energy (the energy put into them to lift them from ground zero).

Is this answer some kind of a joke?
 
Let me point out that the 23rd of Sep was not 'months after the attacks' it wasn't even 2 weeks.

The info about Fukishima is a 'red herring'. It has NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks.
 
There is a topic for that, somewhere. Best go there. This thread, as far as I understand it, concerns whether or not WTC7 got hot enough during the seven-hour fire to collapse by itself.
 
There is a topic for that, somewhere. Best go there. This thread, as far as I understand it, concerns whether or not WTC7 got hot enough during the seven-hour fire to collapse by itself.

Can you site your reference on this? I think this an original evaluation of some sort.

They do if they're made of steel, and very tall. It's the remains of the potential energy (the energy put into them to lift them from ground zero).
 
Can you site your reference on this?
You aren't responding to my reply. The calculations (of the potential energy in a WTC tower) are in another thread on this site. When you find them, you may dispute them there. The word is "cite".

There is nothing "original" (in the sense of "new") about the evaluation, which I'm sure the NIST Report would have added if it had been within its brief. Potential Energy is a mainstay of physics. It almost originates it. :)
 
It's a bit of an original theory though isn't it? Nobody disputes that the energy is there, just where it goes. Perhaps though we should create a thread dedicated to just that. Newton's cradle and all :)
 
It's a bit of an original theory though isn't it? Nobody disputes that the energy is there, just where it goes. Perhaps though we should create a thread dedicated to just that. Newton's cradle and all :)
That's the one. It's not an original theory. ANY experienced engineer should be able to come up with the same scenario and calculations. It may well be "original" to you because it's not your field. It's not so to me, and many thousands of engineers more experienced than I am.

It IS the story of the movement of energy. The residue of the PE has to find the footings, the start amount can be calculated, the amount lost on the way down can be calculated, and the difference is evenly or unevenly split between general and diffuse impact warming and the proportion of the KE elastically transmitted downwards to the footing. That energy can only end up as heat or deformation.

Being a mathematical expression of physical laws, it shows, rather like a sim*, the trends, and sharpens points of debate, and being of the generally understandable serviette, biro, and calculator sort of thing beats any "reference". This "reference" is plain grade five science. Make that grade ten. Decades have elapsed...

* But it's a lot cheaper...
 
By "original", I mean I never heard anyone use it but you.
I have never researched for proper physical explanations of the residual heat (beyond truther assertions), have you? A set of intelligent positive and negative search terms would be required, no doubt.

I'm sure you'll find some work, once past the truther hurdle.
 
I have never researched for proper physical explanations of the residual heat (beyond truther assertions), have you? A set of intelligent positive and negative search terms would be required, no doubt.

I'm sure you'll find some work, once past the truther hurdle.

Half the links come back to your posts :)
 

To post a pic you just 'right click and copy the pic' and paste it onto your post... that's all I do.

I don't understand why you are so keen on the nuclear demolition theory though. There seems to be no evidence for it and a lot against it.

Can we bring the thread back Mick and have a look again at it?
 
I am cu
I am asking how accurate is the analysis in Oxy's post (the one I picked to start this thread with).

It seems that claiming 30 minutes by chopping off the part of the sentence that indicates 3 hours is a VERY deliberate attempt to mislead.

I'm trying to focus here. You can't just hand wave and say "never mind that, look over here".

I'm asking if the fires burned hot enough and long enough. We have some quote from NIST that seemed to say no, then they are shown to be taken out of context, and now you move to "it seems to me..."

Why not see what NIST actually said in context? What about the first part?

"Paragraph/Sentence: Section 3.4.5 Second to last paragraph. “Figure 3-9 shows an example of the extent of structural damage from the fires, in this case for the 13th floor. At both 3.5 h and 4.0 h, connections, floor beams, and girders were damaged or had failed at steel temperatures that were approximately 400º C or less, primarily due to the effects of thermal expansion. After 4 h of heating, there was substantially more damage and failures in the WTC 7 structural system than at 3.5 h of heating.” And in the next paragraph: “However, it appeared likely the critical damage state occurred between 3.5 h and 4 h.”
Content from External Source
The 911Research piece suggests " it appears the modeling effort to reach failure mode of the connections required was at least a time of 3.5 hours at a temperature of approximately 400º C." but this is basically a lie. If you read the report (NCSTAR 1-A) it's very clear that they are talking about 3.5 hours into the simulation, not 3.5 hours of sustained 400C. They are very clear that the fire was not sustained in any one location for that long:

I am curious at 1 pm it doesn't show any fire and at 2 starts to show 700 to 900 & a little bit of a 1000 degrees. Being the WTC collapsed around 10am why is it taking 4 hours for a fire to show up? Being red is the hottest fire what is causing such a hot fire? Nano thermite? How does NIST know what the temperatures were & how do they know the fires traveled the way they did?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am cu
I am curious at 1 pm it doesn't show any fire and at 2 starts to show 700 to 900 & a little bit of a 1000 degrees. Being the WTC collapsed around 10am why is it taking 4 hours for a fire to show up? Being red is the hottest fire what is causing such a hot fire? Nano thermite? How does NIST know what the temperatures were & how do they know the fires traveled the way they did?


It's just floor 8.

Read the report. They go into extensive detail as to how they figured it out.
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf
 
Last edited:
You aren't responding to my reply. The calculations (of the potential energy in a WTC tower) are in another thread on this site. When you find them, you may dispute them there. The word is "cite".

There is nothing "original" (in the sense of "new") about the evaluation, which I'm sure the NIST Report would have added if it had been within its brief. Potential Energy is a mainstay of physics. It almost originates it. :)

Thanks for the courtesy of letting me that your calculations are on another cite but letting me know I spelled site wrong.
Whatever your calculations are, does it calculate 70% of the WTC turning into dust?
 
To post a pic you just 'right click and copy the pic' and paste it onto your post... that's all I do.

I don't understand why you are so keen on the nuclear demolition theory though. There seems to be no evidence for it and a lot against it.

Can we bring the thread back Mick and have a look again at it?

How are you making the judgement that there isn't any evidence for the nuclear theory? Because NIST didn't bring it up?
 
O
I do. Israelis were busted with explosives (public knowledge due to FOI requests) on the day of the attacks and they were also apparently busted working in the towers on the elevators and sprinkler systems where they didn't have contracts to work and so forth.

People shouldn't be ignoring the overall pattern of evidence with respect to the way that America and Israel have worked around the world when they want to shift geopolitical realities, etc. It's all well documented and basically public knowledge, yet all we get from the conspiracy/bunk community is "thermite" or directed energy weapons and illuminati (Why not throw in a few aliens too?) while on the other side all we get from the debunking community is official B$ and the best official reports and simulations that money can buy.

One of the responders stated they saw a Middle Eastern guy with a maintenance outfit being arrested in the lobby. They were also some that were arrested in the Mexican Hall of Congress with guns and explosives. They got long prison sentences of about 2 months before quietly being sent to Israel. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mex.html
 
This bloke believes that four of these couldn't reach the foyer from 800 feet up. And 24,000 pounds of kerosine IS four of these.

[video=youtube_share;zf7m7hN5Szc]

So at the end of his list he should add - himself.


Wasn't most of the kerosene or all of it recovered?
 
G
It is very interesting that when you google "A thick piece of steel (that is a piece with a high volume/surface area ratio) that got hot enough to soften, would if left alone end up permanently softened" or some derivative thereof... you get:
WTC7: Did the fires burn long and hot enough? - Page 6 - Metabunk

Seems like yet another invention.

This appears to be a far better/believable explanation of the processes and results in terms of steel in fire situations .

http://www.zianet.com/ebear/metal/heattreat3.html

Critical Temperatures. -- The "critical points" of carbon tool steel are the temperatures at which certain changes in the chemical composition of the steel take place, during both heating and cooling. Steel at normal temperatures has its carbon (which is the chief hardening element) in a certain form called pearlite carbon, and if the steel is heated to a certain temperature, a change occurs and the pearlite becomes martensite or hardening carbon. If the steel is allowed to cool slowly, the hardening carbon changes back to pearlite. The points at which these changes occur are the decalescence and recalescence or critical points, and the effect of these molecular changes is as follows: When a piece of steel is heated to a certain point, it continues to absorb heat without appreciably rising in temperature, although its immediate surroundings may be hotter than the steel. This is the decalescence point. Similarly, steel cooling slowly from a high heat will, at a certain temperature, actually increase in temperature, although its surroundings may be colder. This takes place at the recalescence point. The recalescence point is lower than the decalescence point by anywhere from 85 to 215 degrees F., and the lower of these points does not manifest itself unless the higher one has first been fully passed. These critical points have a direct relation to the hardening of steel. Unless a temperature sufficient to reach the decalescence point is obtained, so that the pearlite carbon is changed into a hardening carbon, no hardening action can take place; and unless the steel is cooled suddenly before it reaches the recalescence point, thus preventing the changing back again from hardening to pearlite carbon, no hardening can take place. The critical points vary for different kinds of steel and must be determined by tests in each case. It is the variation in the critical points that makes it necessary to heat different steels to different temperatures when hardening.
Content from External Source

Guliani spent all this taxpayers money to fortify some floors at WTC 7 and.......He didn't even use the bunker made floors as his headquarters as it was intended to be used.
 
I am curious at 1 pm it doesn't show any fire and at 2 starts to show 700 to 900 & a little bit of a 1000 degrees. Being the WTC collapsed around 10am why is it taking 4 hours for a fire to show up? Being red is the hottest fire what is causing such a hot fire? Nano thermite? How does NIST know what the temperatures were & how do they know the fires traveled the way they did?
Floor 8 might not have had any fire at that level early on. It would take time for a well-insulated floor above a burning floor to actually catch fire by being heated from below. It looks quite possible to me. It is just the way fire spreads in an insulated building. Following Mick's reference should help you.

Thanks for the courtesy of letting me that your calculations are on another cite but letting me know I spelled site wrong. Whatever your calculations are, does it calculate 70% of the WTC turning into dust?
There are different words here. "Cite" is a verb meaning to quote. "Site" is a noun meaning place.

Steel can be turned to dust only by evaporating it in a vacuum. That isn't possible except in a supernova. Your statement is wrong.

One of the responders stated they saw a Middle Eastern guy with a maintenance outfit being arrested in the lobby. They were also some that were arrested in the Mexican Hall of Congress with guns and explosives. They got long prison sentences of about 2 months before quietly being sent to Israel.
"She stated to La Voz de Aztlan that the two terrorists had taken advantage of a situation that occurred around 1700 hours of Wednesday October 10 when a large contingent of Sugar Industry Unionists were entering through the metal detectors".
Content from External Source
It seems to be somewhat later than 911.

Wasn't most of the kerosene or all of it recovered?
[...] No.

"A thick piece of steel (that is a piece with a high volume/surface area ratio) that got hot enough to soften, would if left alone end up permanently softened"
Content from External Source
can be rephrased as



Critical Temperatures. -- The "critical points" of carbon tool steel are the temperatures at which certain changes in the chemical composition of the steel take place, during both heating and cooling. Steel at normal temperatures has its carbon (which is the chief hardening element) in a certain form called pearlite carbon, and if the steel is heated to a certain temperature, a change occurs and the pearlite becomes martensite or hardening carbon. If the steel is allowed to cool slowly, the hardening carbon changes back to pearlite. The points at which these changes occur are the decalescence and recalescence or critical points, and the effect of these molecular changes is as follows: When a piece of steel is heated to a certain point, it continues to absorb heat without appreciably rising in temperature, although its immediate surroundings may be hotter than the steel. This is the decalescence point. Similarly, steel cooling slowly from a high heat will, at a certain temperature, actually increase in temperature, although its surroundings may be colder. This takes place at the recalescence point. The recalescence point is lower than the decalescence point by anywhere from 85 to 215 degrees F., and the lower of these points does not manifest itself unless the higher one has first been fully passed. These critical points have a direct relation to the hardening of steel. Unless a temperature sufficient to reach the decalescence point is obtained, so that the pearlite carbon is changed into a hardening carbon, no hardening action can take place; and unless the steel is cooled suddenly before it reaches the recalescence point, thus preventing the changing back again from hardening to pearlite carbon, no hardening can take place. The critical points vary for different kinds of steel and must be determined by tests in each case. It is the variation in the critical points that makes it necessary to heat different steels to different temperatures when hardening.
Content from External Source
They are essentially in agreement with each other. The high volume to surface area would allow only very slow cooling, allowing the material to remain soft.

This point has no relevance to the collapses.

and 70% turned into dust, mostly micron size
This statement is FALSE. It has a partner with the suggestion that liquid fuel was recovered from a fire.
 
O
One of the responders stated they saw a Middle Eastern guy with a maintenance outfit being arrested in the lobby. They were also some that were arrested in the Mexican Hall of Congress with guns and explosives. They got long prison sentences of about 2 months before quietly being sent to Israel. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mex.html

If you study the history of Zionism, terrorism and corruption are basically standard operating procedure... from the Irgun to the USS Liberty to the joint operation of Iran Contra, to the joint operation of 911.

If you want to understand it (Not that it matters what you understand or don't understand.) then this fellow has laid much of it out fairly well into a theory with explanatory power:

Remember the Anthrax and the meeting of Iraqis with ? Those were the days.
 
How does NIST know what the temperatures were & how do they know the fires traveled the way they did?

It would probably "jeopardize public safety" to do much more than create a simulation of "collapse by fire" that matched the visual evidence of the day:

From NIST's apparent perspective, even if you have to imagine or simulate seeing huge steel beams collapsing or "buckling" relatively symmetrically behind the facade due to burning office furniture and so forth, ultimately you would have to imagine or simulate things to the point of coming to the correct conclusion that matched the official worldview for now.

That's why as far as NIST goes you'll probably be left with the simulation of "temperatures" sufficient to explain any of the videos* of the day in terms of the unprecedented event of a collapse by fire and so forth. Personally, I'd like to see them set up a fire made out of office furniture and so forth and "buckle" a real thick steel beam with it or cause it to expand while leaving concrete floors the same, etc. But that's probably just me, as many people seem to be happy with computer simulations.

I'm sure they did their best to make their imaginations and simulations work no matter what... because they already knew the type of conclusion that they had to come to for the sake of public safety, if not their own safety too. Like most "investigative journalists" in the corporate media, it's actually hard to imagine them coming to any other conclusion than the one that they simulated and so forth even if 911 really was an outside/inside job of a faction of collaborators and a foreign intelligence service. (Although, would it really be foreign if people were dual citizens?) Even if it really was, how would they be able to overcome their personal epistemic inertia and numerous other psychological "compartments" bound to create more inertia to the point of beginning to investigate and look for evidence or ultimately, knowing that it was a joint operation like Iran Contra? After all, who would be the imaginary spokesman and investigator for the evidence that didn't fit the theory of office fires and so forth that they were apparently trying to make work for the sake of public safety? And if they hadn't already naturally formed a herd mentality against "truthers" that was pretty much totally "locked in"... how would they as truth seekers supposedly go about publicizing any anomalous evidence "found" within their simulations? Although I suspect that if they had "found" anything inconsistent with the official worldview that way, then more people would become aware of the distinction between a simulation based on the evidence and actual physical or empirical evidence. And with respect to the fires, wouldn't it have been helpful to set more beams aside so that their "buckling" could be entered into the simulation and checked against it? If the simulation was saying that a beam had only buckled so far, yet the actual beam looked more like a pretzel... then what? Would alternative theories like that of Dr. Judy Wood even be allowed to enter the equation based on the evidence? How would that or anything other than the official worldview be possible? Government scientists "found" evidence that verified the only theory they were allowed to look for and only tried to falsify other theories to the extent that the public brought them up. Surprise.

Imagine... would any of the strongest investigators in the official tribe itself more interested in the truth than their jobs/tribes supposedly go out and make friends with truther/kook/crackpot tribes or even "jeopardize public safety" by leaking evidence to them? Note that it's usually pretty easy to get people to "herd" and go into a sort of psychological lock down* mode through provocation too, a well known tactic of controlling the flow of information among the intelligence services that serve our oligarchs.

In any event... perhaps all they really needed in the intricate equations that produced their simulations and so forth was this: "And then, a miracle occurred." Because then whatever they had to enter into the equations that produced their simulations, their nation would have been safe and they could stick with their herd/friends instead of apparently "jeopardizing public safety." (The only problem with that being, if the terrorist faction responsible for the event was actually still at large... then that might "jeopardize public safety" more than the imaginary panic that would be created by widespread knowledge of the fact that even the simulation of an investigation actually didn't work out all that well.)

*Kind of ironic, I was going to self-censor something in this thread due to tribalism or feelings probably based on tribal considerations. But then I changed my mind. Yet I reserve the right to change it back again too.
 
Would alternative theories like that of Dr. Judy Wood even be allowed to enter the equation based on the evidence? How would that or anything other than the official worldview be possible?


It would be possible based on the evidence. Like if there actually was any evidence for Wood's theory.

Do you think she actually has any convincing evidence? We could start a thread about that.

But check here first:
https://www.google.com/search?q=judy+wood+site:randi.org
 
Do you think she actually has any convincing evidence?

Comparing different theories about the technical details of what seems to me to have been a joint operation of global intelligence services is a work in progress for me... it almost seemed convincing when she showed what looked like some remaining columns folding down or doing something weird. But that's just me liking some visual evidence, like most people. Her main falsification/verification would seem to be an analysis of the debris and some sort of a specification with respect to how much "should" be there or was there. I.e. if there was "enough" or not enough as it had turned to dust and so forth, something I may read about. Right now I wouldn't say, "This single piece of evidence is convincing." (Although it's always nice to have a visual like WTC 7 and not an elaborate theory, huh?) But I'm willing to consider it, otherwise I wouldn't even be interested in looking for evidence with respect to a possible verification/falsification on that. At least she doesn't seem to run up against the fact that the seismic evidence doesn't seem to line up with explosives and in fact, may not line up with the total weight of the towers hitting the ground either. Because that would be a possible verification of her theory and the falsification of two other competing theories.

The "toasted car" thread was also interesting, given that no one really verified/falsified her claims about the evidence once way or another so far as I know. That would seem to be an easy verification/falsification for her, as either they were moved there or they weren't. But this entails someone putting in the time to verify/falsify her theory... including her. Hopefully she's not too busy with running around the world being a "truther" or fundraising to bother with the technical details, huh? Looks like an interesting little falsification here, though. And my sense of Judy Wood is that she might not even move the goal posts, i.e. she might count it as a falsification. Hopefully my theory about her isn't incorrect, maybe I should put in the time to verify or falsify it, huh? That's the thing about it, though. A lot of it comes down to taking the time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Floor 8 might not have had any fire at that level early on. It would take time for a well-insulated floor above a burning floor to actually catch fire by being heated from below. It looks quite possible to me. It is just the way fire spreads in an insulated building. Following Mick's reference should help you.


There are different words here. "Cite" is a verb meaning to quote. "Site" is a noun meaning place.

Steel can be turned to dust only by evaporating it in a vacuum. That isn't possible except in a supernova. Your statement is wrong.


"She stated to La Voz de Aztlan that the two terrorists had taken advantage of a situation that occurred around 1700 hours of Wednesday October 10 when a large contingent of Sugar Industry Unionists were entering through the metal detectors".
Content from External Source
It seems to be somewhat later than 911.


[...] No.

"A thick piece of steel (that is a piece with a high volume/surface area ratio) that got hot enough to soften, would if left alone end up permanently softened"
Content from External Source
can be rephrased as



Critical Temperatures. -- The "critical points" of carbon tool steel are the temperatures at which certain changes in the chemical composition of the steel take place, during both heating and cooling. Steel at normal temperatures has its carbon (which is the chief hardening element) in a certain form called pearlite carbon, and if the steel is heated to a certain temperature, a change occurs and the pearlite becomes martensite or hardening carbon. If the steel is allowed to cool slowly, the hardening carbon changes back to pearlite. The points at which these changes occur are the decalescence and recalescence or critical points, and the effect of these molecular changes is as follows: When a piece of steel is heated to a certain point, it continues to absorb heat without appreciably rising in temperature, although its immediate surroundings may be hotter than the steel. This is the decalescence point. Similarly, steel cooling slowly from a high heat will, at a certain temperature, actually increase in temperature, although its surroundings may be colder. This takes place at the recalescence point. The recalescence point is lower than the decalescence point by anywhere from 85 to 215 degrees F., and the lower of these points does not manifest itself unless the higher one has first been fully passed. These critical points have a direct relation to the hardening of steel. Unless a temperature sufficient to reach the decalescence point is obtained, so that the pearlite carbon is changed into a hardening carbon, no hardening action can take place; and unless the steel is cooled suddenly before it reaches the recalescence point, thus preventing the changing back again from hardening to pearlite carbon, no hardening can take place. The critical points vary for different kinds of steel and must be determined by tests in each case. It is the variation in the critical points that makes it necessary to heat different steels to different temperatures when hardening.
Content from External Source
They are essentially in agreement with each other. The high volume to surface area would allow only very slow cooling, allowing the material to remain soft.

This point has no relevance to the collapses.


This statement is FALSE. It has a partner with the suggestion that liquid fuel was recovered from a fire.
It would be possible based on the evidence. Like if there actually was any evidence for Wood's theory.

Do you think she actually has any convincing evidence? We could start a thread about that.

But check here first:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=judy wood site:randi.org
 
Ah, Muttkat, Mynym, Wood and "dustiness".

It's possible to work out the height of a WTC tower when the air has been expressed from it.

Given the weight of a tower to be 450,000 tons and the SG of steel to be 7.81, the density of water 62.2 pounds per cubic foot. the length and width to be 210 feet and the height 1360 feet,.

The volume of the tower is 210 x 210 x 1360 = 6 x 10^7 cubic feet.

If it were solid steel it would therefore weigh 13 million tons. As it only weighed 450,000 tons, then the height of the steel alone would be 47 feet.

So 1360 feet becomes 47 feet.

How deep was the basement?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top