| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | Summary of metallographic analysis – Perimeter Columns
• For all perimeter column flanges, outer webs, and spandrels
with Fy = 55, 60, and 65 ksi
• 136 distinct samples (many from the fire floors) evaluated
with no spheroidization observed, and thus no significant
steel temperatures over 625 °C.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf |
Using NIST now? Oh really? NIST claims the fires reached 1000 degrees C, as well. I guess I just used your own source to prove you wrong. |
All I want to know is why the NIST investigation suddenly realized all the figures were wrong and bumped the heat up? Oh they needed to account for the molten metal seen dripping from the south tower. |
 |
Bump for Patrick.
Incidentally, what's with the ball-sniffing fetish?
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey CS - shouldn't you be out working to ensure Bush is flipping burgers by this time next week? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | I was using an ordinary steel shovel to tend an ordinary camp fire one night during a party when I was back in high school. Several times, I noticed the shovel turn red-hot as I worked, but I didn't think about what it was doing to the steel at a molecular level. Sure enough, I went to move a log, and the steel bent back like putty (ruining my step-dad's shovel--which I then had to replace). Who'da thunk? |
Balls!
It wasn't steel.
Now sniff. |
He probably hasn't taken on board that steel is a variable alloy that comes in various grades yet. |
Indeed a steel shovel would weigh a ton! |
You really are ignorant, it seems. These are shovels. You will see that the blade is made out of steel. That is what grown-ups' shovels are made of, not plastic like yours. They weigh about 4 lbs, not a ton as you thought.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | I was using an ordinary steel shovel to tend an ordinary camp fire one night during a party when I was back in high school. Several times, I noticed the shovel turn red-hot as I worked, but I didn't think about what it was doing to the steel at a molecular level. Sure enough, I went to move a log, and the steel bent back like putty (ruining my step-dad's shovel--which I then had to replace). Who'da thunk? |
Balls!
It wasn't steel.
Now sniff. |
He probably hasn't taken on board that steel is a variable alloy that comes in various grades yet. |
Indeed a steel shovel would weigh a ton! |
You really are ignorant, it seems. These are shovels. You will see that the blade is made out of steel. That is what grown-ups' shovels are made of, not plastic like yours. They weigh about 4 lbs, not a ton as you thought. |
Those are what would be termed 'mild steel', and of no relevance.
They corrode and degrade rapidly, especially iwhen heat unlike the type of steel used in buildings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blunt Republican
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 12
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How does anyone just by looking at it tell the difference between molten steel, and loten metal, it was likely just a melted desk or something.
_________________
I'll make a signateur later you stupid democrats! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | I noticed the shovel turn red-hot as I worked, but I didn't think about what it was doing to the steel at a molecular level. Sure enough, I went to move a log, and the steel bent back like putty (ruining my step-dad's shovel--which I then had to replace). Who'da thunk? |
Get back to work!
And sniff it.
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | I noticed the shovel turn red-hot as I worked, but I didn't think about what it was doing to the steel at a molecular level. Sure enough, I went to move a log, and the steel bent back like putty (ruining my step-dad's shovel--which I then had to replace). Who'da thunk? |
Get back to work!
And sniff it. |
Attributing quotes to people who did not say them is of course very poor netiquette, but also very representative of truthshirkers approach to facts, as their very flexible friends.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
I'm not competent to discuss the math, but nevertheless it requires a massive amount of energy to transport those dust clouds dumping inches
thickness of dust all across Manhattan and beyond at the speeds observed. |
Then why do you make claims that can only be supported by math? You just claimed "massive" amounts of energy are required. You have utterly no idea how much energy is required. You've done no calculations. You don't know much it would require or how much there was. You are just guessing. Guesses aren't worth much.
| Quote: |
What is your proposed reason for the 'hotspots' of concentrated heat? How does your explanation not result in a uniformly heated pile of debris, as your use of the First Law would appear to dictate? |
I'm sorry but this is gibberish. Nothing about the first law dictates that the heat would be uniformly distributed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: |
As for the math you don't need it as the graphical evidence is really good. |
Oh man, that is one for the CT hall of shame. What an eloquent summation of everything wrong with all CT arguments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | chek wrote: |
I'm not competent to discuss the math, but nevertheless it requires a massive amount of energy to transport those dust clouds dumping inches
thickness of dust all across Manhattan and beyond at the speeds observed. |
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Then why do you make claims that can only be supported by math? You just claimed "massive" amounts of energy are required. You have utterly no idea how much energy is required. You've done no calculations. You don't know much it would require or how much there was. You are just guessing. Guesses aren't worth much. |
The point is that taking even Hoffman's disputed figures for generating the dust cloud into account subtracts more than is available from the available kinetic energy that you are claiming heated the rubble to temperatures over 1000C.
Having left that factor out, your guesses are worth much less.
| Quote: |
What is your proposed reason for the 'hotspots' of concentrated heat? How does your explanation not result in a uniformly heated pile of debris, as your use of the First Law would appear to dictate? |
I'm sorry but this is gibberish. Nothing about the first law dictates that the heat would be uniformly distributed. |
Yet it seems a less likely scenario that it would be concentrated in 3 specific areas coinciding with the cores of the three buildings.
What mid-air mechanism ensured the heat wasn't transferred throughout the entire envelope of falling material if your assertion is to be believed.? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
Yet it seems a less likely scenario that it would be concentrated in 3 specific areas coinciding with the cores of the three buildings.
What mid-air mechanism ensured the heat wasn't transferred throughout the entire envelope of falling material if your assertion is to be believed.? |
You are basing your "questions" on mathematical assumptions that are completely and utterly flawed. Randomly dispersed heat does not imply uniformly dispersed heat. A randomly dispersed pattern would include clumps. Random numbers universially generate clumps. How many times are the lottery numbers equally spaced?
This quesiton is literally like asking me what "mechanism" caused the lottery numbers to fall into 2 clumps.
This isn't really your fault because human being naturally misunderstand randomness in this way. If you take 10 people and put them in a room, and ask them to position themselves "randomly" they naturally tend to spread out from each other. Random numbers do not behave this way, at all.
Let me reiterate the important point: "Clumpiness" is predicted by random dispersion. Your assumption is that "uniform" heat would be the correct prediction. That is wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | chek wrote: |
Yet it seems a less likely scenario that it would be concentrated in 3 specific areas coinciding with the cores of the three buildings.
What mid-air mechanism ensured the heat wasn't transferred throughout the entire envelope of falling material if your assertion is to be believed.? |
You are basing your "questions" on mathematical assumptions that are completely and utterly flawed. Randomly dispersed heat does not imply uniformly dispersed heat. A randomly dispersed pattern would include clumps. Random numbers universially generate clumps. How many times are the lottery numbers equally spaced?
This quesiton is literally like asking me what "mechanism" caused the lottery numbers to fall into 2 clumps.
This isn't really your fault because human being naturally misunderstand randomness in this way. If you take 10 people and put them in a room, and ask them to position themselves "randomly" they naturally tend to spread out from each other. Random numbers do not behave this way, at all.
Let me reiterate the important point: "Clumpiness" is predicted by random dispersion. Your assumption is that "uniform" heat would be the correct prediction. That is wrong. |
While you may be mathematically correct and the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 are equally likely to theoretically come up in a lottery by chance - it never happens.
And so yet again it's another 911 miracle you're punting, with no buyers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
While you may be mathematically correct and the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 are equally likely to theoretically come up in a lottery by chance - it never happens.
And so yet again it's another 911 miracle you're punting, with no buyers. |
That's not what I said, chek. The probability of a single outcome isn't relevent. The probability of "clumps" over all outcomes is.
Do me a favor, write a program to plot 100 random numbers on a grid. Or 1000. You will find that there are some clumps, and there are sparse regions. This is a mathematically expected condition. It occurs with overwhelmingly regularity. It would be about 5 lines of code in MATLAB or Mathematica.
Again, how many times are the lottery numbers equally spaced out? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
