Sergei Dudarev, of the UK Atomic Energy Agency, found that steel loses its strength above 500C because its molecules undergo a physical transition from one state to another due to magnetic fluctuations. "The steel didn't melt, it just became soft. It is an unusual state and the temperatures in the Twin Towers were high enough to cause it because the thermal insulation was knocked off the girders through the impact with the aircraft," he said.
"Understanding how materials behave means we can find the right 'medicine' to make steel stronger at high temperatures... and if our work can be used for other applications, such as safeguarding tall buildings against disasters, so much the better," he said.
Oh pleeeeeeeeeease.
And I thought I'd heard it all.
Some 'scientists' are quite eager to look even more ridiculous...
What experiments were carried out to reach these 'insightful' conclusions?
And why doesn't Mr. Dudarev publish his findings for peer review?
And why didn't Mr. Dudarev tell nist about his findings, could have saved them some funds surely?
Surely engineers and architects all over the world will take this great new research on and reassess fire safety procedures?
And surely insurance companies worldwide will reassess their insurance premiums?
This is freaking comedy. And it only works to our advantage. Thanks ukaea!
'Magnetic fluctuations', very entertaining nevertheless.
I guess this steel in the North Tower must have been fluctuating quite heavily:
If you wish to back off your original comment (wise, as the Windsor was RC) then you should find a more graceful way of doing so.
Well actually no I don't wish to back off from my original comment. Unless we are saying that all the other steel structure buildings were RC, if not it doesn't change the fact that the only 3 steel frame buildings to collapse from fire all occurred on the same day.
The problem with your method of argument is, it seems, that you are not ultimately concerned with revealing the truth, maybe you just don't want to see the bigger picture, which is pretty horrendous.
If we use an analogy here, we could say there is a field with 50 dead cows in it, I point at one and say look something terrible has happened, all the cows are dead. Then the cow I actually pointed at moves it's leg and isn't quite dead, a truth critic would pop up and claim ' perhaps you ought to do a little research here before spouting your nonsense, that cow is clearly not dead.
Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Posts: 56 Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:29 pm Post subject:
Kevin Ryan has written a good essay which clearly outlines most of NIST's contradictions over the years and shames this unfounded theory of 'thermal expansion'.
Read it here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/17704 _________________ The promise of freedom will only come about when the last man to walk this earth lives out his days in dreadful solitude. Only then will we see the end of war.
If you wish to back off your original comment (wise, as the Windsor was RC) then you should find a more graceful way of doing so.
Well actually no I don't wish to back off from my original comment.
Your original comment was that the Windsor building should also have suffered in the same way as WTC, as it was subject to an intense and long-lasting fire and the core structure would certainly have reached 500°C
You wish to stand by this claim ???
I can't see why, as the Windsor building had a reinforced concrete core. You must have been unaware of that, but you still haven't addressed this issue. Was changing the subject to other steel-framed buildings your way of admitting your error? Answer this point alone and I'm happy to discuss other steel-framed high-rise fires, but if you keep changing the subject every time you feel uncomfortable with a simple fact then we're unlikely to progress far. _________________ Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
Your original comment was that the Windsor building should also have suffered in the same way as WTC, as it was subject to an intense and long-lasting fire and the core structure would certainly have reached 500°C
Actually that wasn't my claim. I wouldn't expect the Windsor building, damaged by fire, 'to suffer in the same way' as WTC which was reduced to dust by explosives.
In the case of the Windsor Tower, what happened was what was expected, as is the case with fires in other steel structure buildings, the various components and structural integrity of the buildings under fire conditions did what was expected of them, didn't collapse, were not reduced to dust.
You have pointed out that the Windsor building was an RC building and consequently more fire resistant, thanks, I didn't know that, but as I pointed out, unless all the high rise fires had been RC buildings with the exception of WTC buildings, making them exceptional, it makes no difference to the overall picture.
Regarding your invitation to discuss other buildings, if you can't tell the difference between something blowing up, and something falling down I will have to decline.
You have pointed out that the Windsor building was an RC building and consequently more fire resistant, thanks, I didn't know that ...
You're welcome, but - as I pointed out - 2 minutes of Googling would have given you this information and prevented you placing factual errors on a public forum. How many other factoids do you rely on that are similarly flawed ?
For example, where do you get the idea that the Towers were "reduced to dust" ? _________________ Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
This is the "many questions" or "loaded question" fallacy.
In this case your question supposes that the building is, in fact, "exploding". It isn't. It's collapsing and debris is being thrown outwards. This is a natural part of the collapse process and your question doesn't stand, logically speaking.
But in any case you're responding to my question with another (irrelevant) question. The original was "where do you get the idea that the Towers were 'reduced to dust' "
A good start would probably be for ishaar to define "reduced to dust". _________________ Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
In this case your question supposes that the building is, in fact, "exploding". It isn't. It's collapsing and debris is being thrown outwards. This is a natural part of the collapse process...
Are you sure the building is not exploding? Maybe you want to take another look?
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:56 am Post subject:
Response to my email to UKAEA requesting info.
They replied with a copy of the press release, a scientific paper and a metallurgists view.
He didnt answer question how the steel columns could be shaped cut.
Quote:
UKAEA
Mystery of magnetism offers a clue to Twin Towers collapse
Press release
Embargoed until Tuesday 9th September 2008
Scientists have identified for the first time the processes that cause the weakening of steel in tall buildings, such as in the World Trade Center fire of September 11th 2001.
With ever taller skyscrapers being planned – the latest being the Mile-High Tower in Saudi Arabia – the information could help develop steels and alloys which can withstand the high temperatures that occurred in the Twin Towers fire.
The new findings are published in two papers by researchers from UKAEA’s nuclear fusion laboratory at Culham near Oxford, UK. Materials experts at UKAEA Culham are identifying the principles for designing special steels for use in future fusion power stations. Their work shows that the same microscopic magnetic processes which affect the strength of materials in fusion reactors are responsible for the collapse of tall buildings if the steel structures are exposed to high temperatures.
It is known that steel softens and loses strength at temperatures above 500°C, rather than melts – and that this caused the collapse of the towers in New York, as well as other incidents such as structural damage in the Madrid skyscraper fire of February 2005. However, it had not been understood until now why this happens. The scientists found that magnetic fluctuations which occur at atomic level give rise to fundamental changes in the strength of the steels.
The UKAEA team compared the conditions in a fusion plant with those experienced in the World Trade Center fire. They found remarkable similarities between the tests performed on candidate fusion materials and those on structural steels from the towers.
The conclusions could allow the development of alloys and steels with different chemical compositions that can cope with higher temperatures. Apart from fusion plants and materials for skyscraper design, these steels could be used in other high temperature environments, including nuclear fission reactors and hydrogen production plants.
UKAEA Culham’s Dr Sergei Dudarev, who leads the research team, will be outlining the findings at the BA Festival of Science 2008 in Liverpool on Tuesday September 9th at 9.45am. He said:
“Understanding how materials behave means we can find the right ‘medicine’ to make steel stronger at high temperatures. I thought the Twin Tower structures might be a useful comparison for the fusion data. But I was surprised to find that the graphs showing the weakening of steel fitted almost exactly.
“Materials are a vital part of research into fusion energy. We need to develop metals that can withstand the extreme conditions in nuclear fusion reactors. It is one of the biggest challenges we face in delivering fusion and its promise of clean, abundant energy. So if we are to be successful, we need an accelerated, well-funded and focused materials development programme.“ The new findings show the advances we are making in understanding the materials needed for fusion plants, along with our colleagues at UK universities and at European laboratories.
“And if our work can be used for other applications, such as safeguarding tall buildings against disasters like the Twin Towers collapse, so much the better.”
Ends
For more information please contact Nick Holloway, Media Manager, UKAEA Culham on 07932 637470 or email nick.holloway@ukaea.org.uk.
Notes to Editors
So they need funding! (on the back of 911 just like PNAC) _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
In this case your question supposes that the building is, in fact, "exploding". It isn't. It's collapsing and debris is being thrown outwards. This is a natural part of the collapse process...
Are you sure the building is not exploding? Maybe you want to take another look?
" ... known as "squibs" .. commonly seen in controlled demolitions ... "
Aren't you embarrassed to post this bilge? "Squibs" are typically small fireworks commonly used to mimic gunshot ricochets in cowboy movies (etc). They are utterly unknown in the CD industry. Even the most died-in-the-wool twoofers gave up this nonsense a couple of years ago.
And ... err ... the startling lack of many blinding flashes and deafening explosions leads me to suppose that the collapse was *not* initiated by high-explosives.
Strangely, both collapses were preceded by an inward-bowing of the exterior.
Strangely, both collapses initiated in the aircraft impact / fire zone.
Now - do you fancy answering my question?
Where do you get the idea that the Towers were "reduced to dust" ? _________________ Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
Correct. This is not CD terminology. You just heard it on a CT website and assumed it was true.
acrobat74 wrote:
Psst...you see the concrete getting pulverized to dust, don't you?
To (explosively) reduce the concrete on those floor spans "to dust" would have required countless explosive charges to be embedded within the concrete itself, on every floor. Do you even know the average width of those floors? Why would anybody even conceive of placing explosives within them when they are not primary load-supporting structures? Can you imagine the complexity of carrying out this utterly useless and irrelevant task? Do you really see 100,000 explosive charges sticking out of the carpets one day and everybody thinking .. "Ah well, Jeb Bush used to have something to do with the security here, so it must be OK" ?
I must repeat my question until you actually answer it - what makes you think the concrete was reduced "to dust" ? Sources would be good. Sources that go beyond some impression you have received from cheap YouTube CT videos would be preferred.
p.s. can you put the contents of the WTC towers into a ranking order, by weight? For example, it might go:
1) steel
2) concrete
3) ???
or
1) concrete
2) steel
3) ???
what do you suppose ??? might be? Any clues? _________________ Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
Correct. This is not CD terminology. You just heard it on a CT website and assumed it was true.
Well squib is official CD terminology, see http://www.mcselph.com/glossary.htm but you may be right that truthers have not been using the term strictly correctly. However the term squib is often referred to in, for instance, the movie industry to make the appearance of a gun shot impact. So I could see that it could have been used as technical slang for small explosive event such as the puffs emanating from a controlled demolition. In any event the truthers are clear what they mean by squibs. If you have a better word for the "squibs" then please propose it.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:38 pm Post subject:
sam wrote:
acrobat74 wrote:
Squibs unknown in demolitions...
Correct. This is not CD terminology. You just heard it on a CT website and assumed it was true.
Possibly.
I doubt that very many of us hang round with explosives users (despite our locations).
But it's generally accepted that the term means sequenced explosions ahead of and facilitating the demolition 'wave'.
acrobat74 wrote:
Psst...you see the concrete getting pulverized to dust, don't you?
sam wrote:
To (explosively) reduce the concrete on those floor spans "to dust" would have required countless explosive charges to be embedded within the concrete itself, on every floor. Do you even know the average width of those floors? Why would anybody even conceive of placing explosives within them when they are not primary load-supporting structures? Can you imagine the complexity of carrying out this utterly useless and irrelevant task? Do you really see 100,000 explosive charges sticking out of the carpets one day and everybody thinking .. "Ah well, Jeb Bush used to have something to do with the security here, so it must be OK" ?
Ummm...not necessarily "Sam", despite your embellishments ad absurdum.
What would actually be required is the Motherferquer of all Shockwaves, which in this era of shock and awe enhanced conventional weaponry designed to be as destructive as possible this side of going nuclear, is not a mad stretch of capability. Though no doubt you see things differently. The bottom line is that pulverisation was apparent from the initiation of collapse and wasn't solely the alleged end product of the weight and fall induced crushing forces of the destruction.
sam wrote:
I must repeat my question until you actually answer it - what makes you think the concrete was reduced "to dust" ? Sources would be good. Sources that go beyond some impression you have received from cheap YouTube CT videos would be preferred.
How about reasonable quality photos then?
I think we can agree there is a humungous if not mindboggling
amount of dust engulfing Lower Manhattan - even if it isn't 'all of it'.
Although I expect you'll feel the need to somehow attempt to minimise the city-block-dwarfing enormity of what that photo conveys.
sam wrote:
p.s. can you put the contents of the WTC towers into a ranking order, by weight? For example, it might go:
1) steel
2) concrete
3) ???
or
1) concrete
2) steel
3) ???
what do you suppose ??? might be? Any clues?
Referring back to old Phys org threads the generally accepted concensus (if not definitive; information - being a component of knowledge which is power - is being withheld, don't forget) is held to be that each Towers' approximate weight each was:
500,000,000 kg or 500,000 tonnes, comprising
96,000,000 kg of steel and
48,000,000 kg concrete.
5,000,000, kg plumbing fixtures
5,000,000 kg HVAC euipment
5,000,000 kg electrical and telecommunications.
However these figures may be deceptive in comparison with other similar buildings:
Empire State Building, NYC = 365,000,000 kg
Woolworth Building, NYC = 223,000,000 kg
John Hancock Tower, Chicago = 174,500,000 kg
so the 'missing' 20% may perhaps be accounted for by the oft quoted tower's construction weight but including live, everyday loads such as the estimated inhabitants and their furnishings. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us.
Last edited by chek on Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:53 pm; edited 3 times in total
WTC7 Coincidences
- lease was purchased by Skull & Bones man just before 9/11
- cost of lease was above market rate and on long lease - hence was a big expense!
- demolition experts had scheduled meetings with secret service on morning of 9/11
From comments on Mike Rudin's latest BBC blog ("No Mystery"!). I really like this analysis
Quote:
77. At 10:58pm on 16 Sep 2008, geomcohan wrote:
It is very simple.
1. Around 5:00 EST CNN in USA reported that WTC7 was collapsing or was going to collapse. Around 5:00 EST BBC mistakenly reported that WTC7 had collapsed. Of course the intended message of BBC's source was that the building was surely going to fall. Shortly after 5:00 EST CBS in USA announced that WTC7 would collapse soon and kept a camera on the building until it fell. Video from Der Tag can still be seen showing emergency workers warning people that WTC7 is going to collapse. A demolitions expert who was on scene has stated that his own analyst, also on scene, told authorities around 1:00 EST that WTC7 would collapse at about 5:00.
2. NIST spent several years looking into more than one possible reason for WTC7's collapse. This means that the cause was unknown. NIST has found that the cause was an unprecedented, unpredictable phenomenon.
(1) and (2) are contradictory. Both cannot be true. (1) is provably true. It is recorded that the collapse was predicted. The predictions were correct. Therefore, (2) cannot be true. Further, NIST's denial by omission of (1) is proof that NIST is lying.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
