|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/30/2006 : 14:08:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I forgot who we're dealing with here. I should have been more specfic.
The melting point of steel is something over 2,700 degrees F.
The point that it becomes mallable, forgeable, is something like 16,00 F, plus a little.
However, the point that it begins to lose it's structural integerty is at right around the drawing point: 400 to 700 degrees F, depending on it's composition.
Can you figure it out from there?
Oh, right filth. 400 - 700 *F... that's why my oven melts every time i run the cleaning cycle... what an idiot...
I'm sure all your 'facts' are as accurate. 
Your oven, unlike your skull, is not structural steel and supports no weight to speak of, and again, you demonstrate that you haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about. Go do some research.
Wait, don't bother! You obviously can't comprehend what you read, either. It would be a useless effort.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 10/30/2006 : 14:25:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I forgot who we're dealing with here. I should have been more specfic.
The melting point of steel is something over 2,700 degrees F.
The point that it becomes mallable, forgeable, is something like 16,00 F, plus a little.
However, the point that it begins to lose it's structural integerty is at right around the drawing point: 400 to 700 degrees F, depending on it's composition.
Can you figure it out from there?
Oh, right filth. 400 - 700 *F... that's why my oven melts every time i run the cleaning cycle... what an idiot...
I'm sure all your 'facts' are as accurate.
This is asinine. After Filthy states in his post that steel does not melt until over 2700 F, you begin making fun of the answer because your oven doesn't melt? That's what Filthy said, isn't it? Do you actually read the posts of others? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 15:03:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
So, CD was used because you believe it.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here. Tom seems to be saying that because the CD Theory has a "huge logistical problem," that the theory is invalid. My stance is that the presence of a "huge logistical problem" does not necessarily invalidate a theory. I'm not stating that the CD Theory is true--I'm saying it is not invalidated by the presence of the huge logistical problem if poses.
This claim does not improve your position since you are now revealing that you are supporting a hypothesis that you may not believe. For what possible end or benefit would you accept such a burden of proof?
My conversation with Tom was not about improving my position. Read the comments! His pov was that having to deal with a huge logistical problem invalidated the CD Theory. My pov is that while it is possible that the CD Theory is not correct, the fact that it has a huge logistical problem to deal with isn't sufficient to declare it invalid. The only way a logistical issue can invalidate a theory is if it can be proven that the logistics to overcome are impossible to overcome. Like if I said my theory hinged on me being able to walk at the speed of light--that would be a logistical issue that would invalidate my theory.
You are acknowledging that the logistical problems associated with planting several pounds of exposives, detonating cord, delay elements, in a number of locations makes the hypothesis that CD was used quite small. How small? 1%, 2%, 3% ? If this is correct why would you invest so much time pursuing an explanation that you consider highly improbable?
I'm not saying the cd theory is quite small. I'm saying the cd theory (or any theory for that matter) is not invalidated by a huge logistical problem that is possible to solve.
We are not talking about any theory we are talking about your CD theory. You have admitted that the logistical problem are huge. This leads me to believe that you are also admitting, or should be, that the probability for successfully planting the explosives undetected would have been quite small. And the probability to have kept all evidence for CD to nothing more than internet speculation smaller still. If you are going to insist that CD is possible, you are going to to provide some details on the what's and how's and where's.
Statements such as, "I don't know how they did it, but they did it" illustrate only the level of gulibility required for CD to be believed. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 17:23:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I forgot who we're dealing with here. I should have been more specfic.
The melting point of steel is something over 2,700 degrees F.
The point that it becomes mallable, forgeable, is something like 16,00 F, plus a little.
However, the point that it begins to lose it's structural integerty is at right around the drawing point: 400 to 700 degrees F, depending on it's composition.
Can you figure it out from there?
Oh, right filth. 400 - 700 *F... that's why my oven melts every time i run the cleaning cycle... what an idiot...
I'm sure all your 'facts' are as accurate.
Your oven, unlike your skull, is not structural steel and supports no weight to speak of, and again, you demonstrate that you haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about. Go do some research.
Wait, don't bother! You obviously can't comprehend what you read, either. It would be a useless effort.
So, you are really sticking to "structural steel begins to lose it's structural integerty right around the drawing point: 400 to 700 degrees F, depending on it's composition?"
So, my oven is sturdier than structural steel? And I guess my oven doesn't melt, it just collapses...
That's funny.
I think the number you are looking for is 700*C, which is 1292 F...
That's why buildings don't fall down if a piece of paper catches on fire. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 17:51:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I forgot who we're dealing with here. I should have been more specfic.
The melting point of steel is something over 2,700 degrees F.
The point that it becomes mallable, forgeable, is something like 16,00 F, plus a little.
However, the point that it begins to lose it's structural integerty is at right around the drawing point: 400 to 700 degrees F, depending on it's composition.
Can you figure it out from there?
Oh, right filth. 400 - 700 *F... that's why my oven melts every time i run the cleaning cycle... what an idiot...
I'm sure all your 'facts' are as accurate.
What an idiot, is right, but only when applied to you. Filthy tried unsuccessfully to give you some basic knowledge about steel, and its complex, graded behavior over a wide range of temperature. (This behavior is basic metallurgy. I learned much of this half a century ago in junior high school metal shop.)
But, either out of blind stupidity or because a lying, false conflation of "weakening" and "melting" is a vital trick on the 9/11 conspiracy-nut toolbox, you pigheadedly redefined what he wrote, and instead equated melting with structural weakening.
And you're the guy who had the nerve to throw gratuitous ad hominems at Filthy as though he was the knuckle-walking bumpkin!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 17:59:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Oh, right filth. 400 - 700 *F... that's why my oven melts every time i run the cleaning cycle... what an idiot...
And your oven supports thousands of tons of building structure?
Ok, that was a strawman. But the fact is, your oven is designed for those temperatures.
The building had a large marigin of error against loss of support because of heat. However, the aircraft removed much of that marigin when it crashed into the building. As the structural temperature started to increase, the structural integrity started to decline until the point where it could no longer hold out against gravity.
When that happened, the collapse started. Steel becomes softer the warmer it gets.
What part of all this is it you don't understand? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 18:13:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by sts60
I'd have to refresh my memory on specific values, so I'll just make the general remark that structural steel begins losing strength at common structure fire temperatures. Steel structural members also expand significantly when subjected to such temperatures.
The combination of these two factors is responsible for many a building collapse, and in classes on building construction familiarization we've seen plenty of images of drooping I-beams and walls pushed out by an expanding steel beams. (Interestingly, light wood frame structure collapses in fires are often also due to steel properties - the gusset plates tying the wood trusses together heat up, expand, and pop off.)
My Dad, a lifelong carpenter, explained to me many years ago that in residential buildings, it is sometimes safer to have certain key elements made of wood, rather than steel. The reason, he said, is that wood, odd as it may seem, can be safer in a fire. A steel structural beam will heat and suddenly sag, while in the same time a thick wooden beam will blaze merrily for many minutes while still holding up its load. The key is, wood can give people time to get out, whereas steel can cause a sudden collapse in a briefer period of time. The heat in a residential fire is almost never enough to melt steel. The long-understood fact is that steel weakens greatly at normal house-fire temperatures.
In skyscrapers, using wood as a basic structure is a nonstarter, of course. And in skyscrapers, load-bearing steel is customarily coated with non-burning insulation in order to prevent its loss of structural strength in fires. This was the case in the WTC buildings. But that insulation was meant to withstand normal fire for a few minutes, not to be subjected to the kinetic force of an airliner's crash, and then the heat of tons of burning kerosene and many more tons of flaming building contents.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 18:37:08 [Permalink]
|
Moakley wrote, in part: quote:
... You have admitted that the logistical problem are huge. This leads me to believe that you are also admitting, or should be, that the probability for successfully planting the explosives undetected would have been quite small. ...
The secret setting of those charges in an occupied office building would be comparable to the "Gay Eye for the Straight Guy" team being able to completely refurbish some schlump's home while he was still in it, without the schlump noticing the work in progress.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 21:35:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
So, CD was used because you believe it.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here. Tom seems to be saying that because the CD Theory has a "huge logistical problem," that the theory is invalid. My stance is that the presence of a "huge logistical problem" does not necessarily invalidate a theory. I'm not stating that the CD Theory is true--I'm saying it is not invalidated by the presence of the huge logistical problem if poses.
This claim does not improve your position since you are now revealing that you are supporting a hypothesis that you may not believe. For what possible end or benefit would you accept such a burden of proof?
My conversation with Tom was not about improving my position. Read the comments! His pov was that having to deal with a huge logistical problem invalidated the CD Theory. My pov is that while it is possible that the CD Theory is not correct, the fact that it has a huge logistical problem to deal with isn't sufficient to declare it invalid. The only way a logistical issue can invalidate a theory is if it can be proven that the logistics to overcome are impossible to overcome. Like if I said my theory hinged on me being able to walk at the speed of light--that would be a logistical issue that would invalidate my theory.
You are acknowledging that the logistical problems associated with planting several pounds of exposives, detonating cord, delay elements, in a number of locations makes the hypothesis that CD was used quite small. How small? 1%, 2%, 3% ? If this is correct why would you invest so much time pursuing an explanation that you consider highly improbable?
I'm not saying the cd theory is quite small. I'm saying the cd theory (or any theory for that matter) is not invalidated by a huge logistical problem that is possible to solve.
quote:
We are not talking about any theory we are talking about your CD theory.
The CD Theory (and it's not really mine...) fits within the set of "any theory," Einstein. 
quote:
You have admitted that the logistical problem are huge.
Huge for me, at least.
quote:
This leads me to believe that you are also admitting, or should be, that the probability for successfully planting the explosives undetected would have been quite small.
That's a big "where you are wrong." Just because I admit I find "how it was done" a huge logistical problem, doesn't mean experts in the field would find it a huge logistical problem. After all, I find changing the oil in my car by myself a huge logistical problem--but Jiffy Lube does it in 15 or 20 minutes...
quote:
And the probability to have kept all evidence for CD to nothing more than internet speculation smaller still.
But it's not just Internet speculation. Real people question the conclusions reached by NIST, FEMA and 9/11 Commission.
quote:
If you are going to insist that CD is possible, you are going to to provide some details on the what's and how's and where's.
No. If I can prove explosives were used, that proves the "huge logistical problem" was solvable. Think of it like this: Let's say the city courthouse bans gun from the court room. And they have a quadruple-redundant system to detect guns--which makes getting a gun in the court room a "huge logistical problem." Then, say someone shoots another person in the court room with a gun. I don't have to show how the shooter got the gun in--they used a gun in the court room, so they obviously figured out a way to do it--even if I can't figure out how they did it.
But you guys seem to think backwards. You would say "the shooter didn't use a gun because getting the gun in would be a huge logistical problem." So you wouldn't investigate to find out who the shooter was, because with no gun there would be no shooter.
NIST did exactly the same thing in that they started with their conclusion that the buildings fell because of the impact damage, coupled with intense fires. Then they worked out a computer simulation that ended with that result. It didn't seem to matter to them (or many of you) that test results didn't "cooperate" with their model. Like dave says--the tests must have been wrong because they don't conform to what we think is true.
quote:
Statements such as, "I don't know how they did it, but they did it" illustrate only the level of gulibility required for CD to be believed.
I guess you missed part where I said I was trying to determine the veracity of the CD Theory. So I'm not saying "they did it." Apparently this is a difficult concept for many of you to grasp--but I'm trying to see if there is evidence of use of explosive materials that were used to bring down the towers. That leaves the "how did they do it" question moot: If there is no evidence, then there isn't a how was it done; if there is evidence, then we know it could be done because we already would have proven it was done. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 21:37:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I forgot who we're dealing with here. I should have been more specfic.
The melting point of steel is something over 2,700 degrees F.
The point that it becomes mallable, forgeable, is something like 16,00 F, plus a little.
However, the point that it begins to lose it's structural integerty is at right around the drawing point: 400 to 700 degrees F, depending on it's composition.
Can you figure it out from there?
Oh, right filth. 400 - 700 *F... that's why my oven melts every time i run the cleaning cycle... what an idiot...
I'm sure all your 'facts' are as accurate.
What an idiot, is right, but only when applied to you. Filthy tried unsuccessfully to give you some basic knowledge about steel, and its complex, graded behavior over a wide range of temperature. (This behavior is basic metallurgy. I learned much of this half a century ago in junior high school metal shop.)
But, either out of blind stupidity or because a lying, false conflation of "weakening" and "melting" is a vital trick on the 9/11 conspiracy-nut toolbox, you pigheadedly redefined what he wrote, and instead equated melting with structural weakening.
And you're the guy who had the nerve to throw gratuitous ad hominems at Filthy as though he was the knuckle-walking bumpkin!
Well, I'm not the one who thinks steel loses its structural integrity at 400*F... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 21:53:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Oh, right filth. 400 - 700 *F... that's why my oven melts every time i run the cleaning cycle... what an idiot...
quote:
But the fact is, your oven is designed for those temperatures.
Sure--they made it out of sheet steel. They know that unless the oven gets to 700*C, it will not collapse. That's why they make the grills over the burners out of iron or steel--because even that controlled burn doesn't get hot enough to melt or weaken the metal. That's why they make pots and pans out of steel and even aluminum--because neither have any structural issues at the maximum temperature most ovens can get--mine is 700*F in its cleaning cycle.
quote:
The building had a large marigin of error against loss of support because of heat. However, the aircraft removed much of that marigin when it crashed into the building.
That's not what NIST says.
quote:
As the structural temperature started to increase, the structural integrity started to decline until the point where it could no longer hold out against gravity.
But NIST says the steel never got to 600*C; and that only a few of the outer columns reached 250*C. That is not hot enough to cause a compromise in the structural integrity of the steel--even as tested with no fireproofing on the steel like UL did.
Remember, UL's test could not get the floor system to fail--even with twice the loading and fires lasting 120 minutes (twice as long as the South tower burned before collapsing). Even with twice the load for twice as long, the UL floor test resulted in only 3 inches of sagging--yet they used 42 inches of sagging in their simulator, because 3 inches didn't result in a collapse (and, likely, neither did 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 ...or 25 or 26 or 27 or 28 or 29...or 37 or 38 or 39 or 40 or 41 inches.
quote:
What part of all this is it you don't understand?
I don't get how a hydrocarbon fire that, given the conditions, was not able to raise the temperature of any of the steel to even 600*C, could cause the 42 inches of sagging required to cause a floor system to collapse when all UL could get was 3 inches of sagging.
Please, doc, explain this to me! |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 21:56:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
quote:
Originally posted by sts60
I'd have to refresh my memory on specific values, so I'll just make the general remark that structural steel begins losing strength at common structure fire temperatures. Steel structural members also expand significantly when subjected to such temperatures.
The combination of these two factors is responsible for many a building collapse, and in classes on building construction familiarization we've seen plenty of images of drooping I-beams and walls pushed out by an expanding steel beams. (Interestingly, light wood frame structure collapses in fires are often also due to steel properties - the gusset plates tying the wood trusses together heat up, expand, and pop off.)
My Dad, a lifelong carpenter, explained to me many years ago that in residential buildings, it is sometimes safer to have certain key elements made of wood, rather than steel. The reason, he said, is that wood, odd as it may seem, can be safer in a fire. A steel structural beam will heat and suddenly sag, while in the same time a thick wooden beam will blaze merrily for many minutes while still holding up its load. The key is, wood can give people time to get out, whereas steel can cause a sudden collapse in a briefer period of time. The heat in a residential fire is almost never enough to melt steel. The long-understood fact is that steel weakens greatly at normal house-fire temperatures.
In skyscrapers, using wood as a basic structure is a nonstarter, of course. And in skyscrapers, load-bearing steel is customarily coated with non-burning insulation in order to prevent its loss of structural strength in fires. This was the case in the WTC buildings. But that insulation was meant to withstand normal fire for a few minutes, not to be subjected to the kinetic force of an airliner's crash, and then the heat of tons of burning kerosene and many more tons of flaming building contents.
And did you know it took repeated blasts with a shot gun at point-blank range to dislodge even small bits of insulation from steel samples? It's all in an appendix of the NIST report... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 03:12:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So, you are really sticking to "structural steel begins to lose it's structural integerty right around the drawing point: 400 to 700 degrees F, depending on it's composition?"
So, my oven is sturdier than structural steel? And I guess my oven doesn't melt, it just collapses...
That's funny.
I think the number you are looking for is 700*C, which is 1292 F...
Fahrenheit, ergonoramus. Fahrenheit. At this point, I'd tell you to look it up, but that would be futile; you don't believe in research. I should have, perhaps, added reference, but I'm finished doing your work for you. Fuck you; do your own.
Indeed, I suspect that you loath research, especially if you think that your findings would knock your theory, the theory that you claim to have but refuse to produce, into the cesspool where it probably belongs. You accuse us of being sheeple who blindly shamble along behind the leader, but it is yourself who is the blind follower, clamped to a CT idiot's ass like some grotesque lampray.
You're no more than a reflex; one of those knee-jerk kind. Instead of trying to differentiate between the facts and suppositions of the matter before forming an opinion, you seize upon the first nut-case scenario to come along that suits your fancy. Even when it has been shown that it was so unlikely that explosives were used that it would border on the impossible -- hell, it was impossible to set charges in those buildings under the existing conditions -- you continue to blather away like some politician explaining why he was not really groping page-boys.
So give us some more blather, then. Produce that "theory" of yours so it's hide can flayed and nailed up on the shed to dry. Or are you maybe just a tad uncertain of it in the face of the known evidence?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 06:04:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
We are not talking about any theory we are talking about your CD theory.
The CD Theory (and it's not really mine...) fits within the set of "any theory," Einstein.
Keep in mind that a theory represents the best explanation for the available data supporting some phenomenon, it's not just an idea. Einstein would know this.
In what way is CD the best explanation for the WTC collapse given the available data? Since there is no data/evidence outside of speculation. Which you would admit, if you were honest, really isn't evidence.
I may return to the rest of your reply at a later time, but at this point I must be billable.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 07:57:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
That's a big "where you are wrong." Just because I admit I find "how it was done" a huge logistical problem, doesn't mean experts in the field would find it a huge logistical problem. After all, I find changing the oil in my car by myself a huge logistical problem--but Jiffy Lube does it in 15 or 20 minutes...
Ah, but here's where your lack of logic comes in.
We are arguing that planting explosives is a huge logistical problem. Not because it's a problem for us, but because it's a problem for anyone.
Just because you can't change the oil quickly does not prevent you from imagining Jiffy Lube doing it quickly. Given the right tools even I can change the oil in 20 minutes.
But there is still no way in hell anyone could get away planting enough explosives. The charges needs to be precisely set and shaped against supporting columns in order to be effective. That means stripping the columns bare naked. The size of the charge needs to increase exponentially with the distance from the columns, so placing them on the outside of the insulation is not an option.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What I don't get...
Topic Locked
