Why Are We In Afghanistan? - Page 5 - Truckers' Trucking Forum

Mooney · **^ Top** #41 4 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by rex

So, I guess we're expected to believe that jet fuel and "stuff in the buildings" burned hotly enough to melt steel into a molten mass- just this once; pretty please?
rx

I'll post this one more time.

Quote:

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.

In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.
In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.

Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.

This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.
But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. ,[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.

Texas-Nana · **^ Top** #42 4 Weeks Ago

Thank you Mooney.

rex · **^ Top** #43 4 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mooney

I'll post this one more time.

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.

Yes, I have the same article on file. However, what it does not mention, and what we still do not understand is how MOLTEN steel- in copious quantities- was discovered in the basements of the towers.

Any coherent explanation?
rx

Mooney · **^ Top** #44 4 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by rex

Yes, I have the same article on file. However, what it does not mention, and what we still do not understand is how MOLTEN steel- in copious quantities- was discovered in the basements of the towers.

Any coherent explanation?
rx

Why not just all your nutty theories so I can debunk all of them at once.

Post your list.

eckz · **^ Top** #45 4 Weeks Ago

Actually what you said about falling straight down is not plausible... For a few reasons.

1, The first tower literally ripped in half, and did begin to tip, when out of nowhere the separated area at the top of the tower seemed to desintigrate in mid air with no explanation. It should have tipped over, but it imploded and was turned to rubble and dust before completing it's descent.

Also heat rises, the heat from the top floors would not weaken the bottom floors, which are curiously where the collapse began. There are several home-video's on file from different angles that show smoke and dust rising from the ground level just before the collapse, there is also documented proof of something called 'squibs' which are outbursts from the sides of the building commonly seen in planned building explosions.

There are also several witness accounts that describe similar sounding "Boom, boom, boom" noises just as the building began to fall. And last but not leaste what you describe about falling straight down is false, it's simple physics.. And object will fall where there is the least possible resistance, which means to the side (which it began to do before it mystereously imploded) I can show you video's of failed demolitions that did not go as plan where the building did not actually fall, but simply leaned over to one side. The fire was toward the top of the building, and while i understand your point about the floors falling and not being able to support it's weight is true, but it would not have fallen that quickly, or in the 'straight down' manner that it did without something 'helping' the subsequent floors to give way other than the weight of the higher floors alone.

The empire state building was struck by a B52 bomber and burned (A hot, hot burn) for just over three hours, it never collapsed.. The smoke from the world trade centers suggests that the fire was 'oxygen deprived' and was not burning anywhere near hot enough to cause any structural damages to anything, much less steel. So let's compare the weight of a B52 bomber vrs the plane that hit the world trade center.. Well, needless to say the B52 is much heavier. Now let's compare the literal inferno that occured at the empire state building to the smoldering 'baby fire' that occured in the world trade center... So why is it that the WTC's fell and the empire state building diddn't?

Let's talk about building 7 which wasn't even touched by a plan.. Building 7 wasn't touched by anything other than debrit that was "shot out" from the WTC (Which doesn't happen unless there is a force doing the shooting, such as an explosion... A building simply 'falling' typically doesn't shoot debrit out for miles damaging other buildings as far as 2 blocks away.. Nor does it launch small bone fragments to the top of buildings almost on the other side of town which were found a few months later) building 7 also collapsed, also right down into it's own footprint, which virtually no structural damage whatsoever. There is also a video of it where you can watch the building as it buckles in the center (Where it's primary supports are) which is ironic.

Let's not ignore the witness accounts from the maintenance personnel who were in the basement.. Yup, the basement.. When they heard a loud boom and the floor shake, the windows on the ground floor blew outward and most of the men were knocked directly to their feet.. Anybody who's destroyed a building via charged, timed explosions will tell you that the structural damage necessary to create such a fiasco will always start at the bottom (the basement, in this case) there is also significant evidence that shows the outside walls of this basement in question have been damaged to the point of needing replacement, they were cracked, and "sucked in" pulling them away from the water/shoreline (They were built to keep the water from the river back).. If the building collapse caused the damage they would have been pushing outward toward the water, and not sucked inward.

I recommend watching a few of the collapse videos in slow motion. Watch for the Squibs, watch for the bright flashes in various points around the building, take a look at the debris scattered around the streets, stuck inside neighboring buildings/walls, etc. This was not merely a collapse. These buildings were built specifically to withstand the impact of an airliner, and let's not forget that the majority of the fuel was immediately consumed upon first impact when you watched that big fireball shoot out of either side of the building... Let's not forget the traces of Thermite on the wreckage, let's not forget the diagonal 'oddly shaped' cut's with the molten steel on top of the pillars at the bottom of the wreckage... This is done by placing charges in a manner where they cut the beams on an 'angle' which demolition experts use to control the way the building falls .. I don't think a normal fire would make such a clean cut in the support beas like that, let alone leave molten (literally) steel burning and smoldering for hours.

By the way, if fire was really what caused both towers to fall, why is it that the tower that was struck last was the first to fall? Same aircraft, same fuel.

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.

Mooney · **^ Top** #46 4 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by eckz

Actually what you said about falling straight down is not plausible... For a few reasons.

1, The first tower literally ripped in half, and did begin to tip, when out of nowhere the separated area at the top of the tower seemed to desintigrate in mid air with no explanation. It should have tipped over, but it imploded and was turned to rubble and dust before completing it's descent.

Also heat rises, the heat from the top floors would not weaken the bottom floors, which are curiously where the collapse began. There are several home-video's on file from different angles that show smoke and dust rising from the ground level just before the collapse, there is also documented proof of something called 'squibs' which are outbursts from the sides of the building commonly seen in planned building explosions.

There are also several witness accounts that describe similar sounding "Boom, boom, boom" noises just as the building began to fall. And last but not leaste what you describe about falling straight down is false, it's simple physics.. And object will fall where there is the least possible resistance, which means to the side (which it began to do before it mystereously imploded) I can show you video's of failed demolitions that did not go as plan where the building did not actually fall, but simply leaned over to one side. The fire was toward the top of the building, and while i understand your point about the floors falling and not being able to support it's weight is true, but it would not have fallen that quickly, or in the 'straight down' manner that it did without something 'helping' the subsequent floors to give way other than the weight of the higher floors alone.

The empire state building was struck by a B52 bomber and burned (A hot, hot burn) for just over three hours, it never collapsed.. The smoke from the world trade centers suggests that the fire was 'oxygen deprived' and was not burning anywhere near hot enough to cause any structural damages to anything, much less steel. So let's compare the weight of a B52 bomber vrs the plane that hit the world trade center.. Well, needless to say the B52 is much heavier. Now let's compare the literal inferno that occured at the empire state building to the smoldering 'baby fire' that occured in the world trade center... So why is it that the WTC's fell and the empire state building diddn't?

Let's talk about building 7 which wasn't even touched by a plan.. Building 7 wasn't touched by anything other than debrit that was "shot out" from the WTC (Which doesn't happen unless there is a force doing the shooting, such as an explosion... A building simply 'falling' typically doesn't shoot debrit out for miles damaging other buildings as far as 2 blocks away.. Nor does it lauch small bone fragments to the top of buildings almost on the other side of town which were found a few months later) building 7 also collapsed, also right down into it's own footprint, which virtually no structural damage whatseover. There is also a video of it where you can watch the building as it buckles in the center (Where it's primary supports are) which is ironic.

Let's not ignore the witness accounts from the maintinence personell who were in the basement.. Yup, the basement.. When they heard a loud boom and the floor shake, the windows on the ground floor blew outward and most of the men were knocked directly to their feet.. Anybody who's destroyed a building via charged, timed explosions will tell you that the structural damage nescessary to create such a fiasco will always start at the bottom (the basement, in this case) there is also significant evidence that shows the outside walls of this basement in question have been damaged to the point of needing replacement, they were cracked, and "sucked in" pulling them away from the water/shoreline (They were built to keep the water from the river back).. If the building collapse caused the damage they would have been pushing outward toward the water, and not sucked inward.

I recommend watching a few of the collapse videos in slow motion. Watch for the Squibs, watch for the bright flashes in various points around the building, take a look at the debrit scattered around the streets, stuck inside neighboring buildings/walls, etc. This was not merely a collapse. These buildings were built specifically to withstand the impact of an airliner, and let's not forget that the majority of the fuel was immediately consumed upon first impact when you watched that big fireball shoot out of either side of the building... Let's not forget the traces of Thermite on the wreckage, let's not forget the diagonal 'oddly shaped' cut's with the molten steel on top of the pillars at the bottom of the wreckage... This is done by placing charges in a manner where they cut the beams on an 'angle' which demolishion experts use to control the way the building falls.. I don't think a normal fire would make such a clean cut in the support beas like that, let alone leave molten (literally) steel buring and smoldering for hours.

By the way, if fire was really what caused both towers to fall, why is it that the tower that was struck last was the first to fall? Same aircraft, same fuel.

Feel free to peruse this site for answers to all of your questions.

I'm tired of explaining it over and over and over.

Big Duker · **^ Top** #47 4 Weeks Ago

The Empire State Bldg was struck by a small WWII B-25 I believe . Not a B-52. And it is totally different type of construction from the WTC's. No light weight steel as in today's construction. Old heavy steel riveted together and also welded. Brick exterior fascia. There's no way to compare the two at all. It has been proven over and over by lots of independent sources just how these towers fell. your bits and pieces are a bunch of ####.

eckz · **^ Top** #48 4 Weeks Ago

Even if i put all of my questions aside, even if what you say is true, the inner core would've still been standing. Either way, it was still designed to withstand exactly this. The architects have openly stated that the heaviest aircraft at the time was a Boeing 707 and that is exactly what it was built to withstand.

Yes they might be #### but at least take a look at the big picture before getting personal. These "bits and peices" tend to add up pretty quickly if you've actually done any research. It hasn't been proven, it's been speculated. The closest explanation I've seen to proof would indicate that the inner form of the building should still be left standing.. and for some odd reason it wasn't.

Tell me about the differences in construction.. Do you know what they are? They diddn't start using steel because it was worse than what they were using previously, that, i can assure you. Typically newer buildings will always out perform better than older ones, the same goes for cars (crash test rating, etc.).

Also they were built in roughly the same manner (Steel Columns) not sure where the difference is.. Can you provide a link?

Admittedly, it is pretty far fetched. It would take alot of planning and time and there are alot of area's to get caught (Unless you can sweep it under the rug). I don't want to get into a pissing contest with any of you, we all chose to believe what we want to believe in this country and i'm a firm believer of living and let live. The thing that concerns me is that if someone did go this far out of their way to do something this catastrophic there has to be a motive somewhere, and i'm not sure that we see it yet but i think that it's coming.

Remember, JFK speculated in his speech that our civil liberties were at risk behind the guise of safety, and security and shortly thereafter he was assasinated.
Benjamin Franklin warned, "Those who will forfeit their liberties for temporary protection deserve neither liberties, or protection."

It is also alleged that someone from the Rockefeller family spoke of the event before it happened, and went into intricite detail as to why it was going to happen and what ultimate goals there were in store for this country, and the world over. I can't speak on whether or not it's true but it's certainly something to think about.. I'm not sure why anybody (much less a famous Movie maker) would want to lie about such a thing.. I would assume that if it was true it would be in a court of law by now, but you never know.

rocknroll nik · **^ Top** #49 4 Weeks Ago

Oi vey the more things change the more they stay the same. The WTC was over 8 years ago guys. And what is more interesting is that many people think we did it to ourselves. While i realize that ANY world government is not above doing that type of thing I still find it appalling that we are still here BATTLEING each other over it.

Has anyone stopped to think about the first time they tried blowing up the towers? they used a u-haul in the basement. Are we to assume that these terroists can't figure out that they needed more explosives? There have been reports of people working (construction type) on some of the floors that collapsed. Of course they must of been in the employ of GW because there is NO WAY a terrorist could be so smart as to infiltrate a public building dressed like construction workers and plant explosives on either a radio detonator or time delay fuse system.

LET THE PEOPLE WHO DIED REST ALREADY KEEP YOUR PARTISAN POLITICS OUT OF THE FACT THAT A WHOLE HELL OF A LOT OF INNOCENT PEOPLE WERE KILLED FOR NO DAMN REASON !!

I am OUTTA HERE

Gummiente · **^ Top** #50 4 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Working Class Patriot

I vote for Canada as the world's policeman......They aren't doing anything at the moment......

Normally I ignore uninformed statements like that, as it is quite a common occurrence whenever dealing with Americans. However, one as ignorant as yours desperately needs to be addressed.

Canada has been fighting the Taliban in support of the US effort since December 2001 when commandos from our JTF2 unit were deployed there. In fact, our contribution can arguably be backdated even further, as the roughly 100 Canadian soldiers serving in exchange positions within various US units were sent over with them in the first stages of the war. In March of 2002, Canadian soldiers were deployed alongside US forces as past of Operation Anaconda. You may recall that during this operation an American F-16 pilot killed four and wounded eight Canadian soldiers when he mistook their night training exercise for a Taliban operation and bombed them. As the war progressed, Canadian troops were stationed first at Kabul, then back to Kandahar where they have been since 2005.

We have been fighting side by side with the US right from the start. Comments like yours not only show a gross ignorance of the world outside your own doorstep, but they are an insult to the over 130 Canadian soldiers who have died in battle since this war began.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Trucker Forum	Replies	Last Post
43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since McChrystal Called for Reinforcements	Mooney	Politics	41	10.08.2009 10.58 PM
Charity Worker Shot Dead in Afghanistan for 'Spreading Christianity'	Cybergal	News - NON Trucking News	1	10.20.2008 01.16 PM
Obama wants more troops for Afghanistan	smurf-316	Politics	10	07.16.2008 07.36 AM
Bush warns of nuclear-armed Iran	hrdman2luv	Politics	36	10.09.2007 11.09 AM
Airstrikes target Taliban in southern Afghanistan, dozens killed	Trucker.W	Politics	7	08.04.2007 10.03 PM

Truckers' Trucking Forum/Message Board - The Premiere Truck Driver Forum

The Following User Says Thank You to eckz For This Useful Post:
rex (4 Weeks Ago)

The Following User Says Thank You to Big Duker For This Useful Post:
Working Class Patriot (4 Weeks Ago)

The Following User Says Thank You to rocknroll nik For This Useful Post:
Hitman (4 Weeks Ago)

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gummiente For This Useful Post:
Hitman (4 Weeks Ago), rex (4 Weeks Ago)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)