thermite reaction - jet fuel combustion temperatures as high as thermite?
jmcc...@hotmail.com
jet fuel? This physicist is saying that the WTC towers could not have
collapsed from the aeroplanes that hit them because they were still
standing afterwards - so the damage was done - and also jet fuel can't
melt steel and there was molten steel reported by FEMA in the rubble of
all three buildings - I didn't know that WTC7 collapsed as well later
that day.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
It helps to have broadband to view the footage he uses in the paper.
Trevor Fenn
38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Then why aren't we using mild steel for engine parts instead of very
expensive heat resistant materials?
TF
jmcc...@hotmail.com
>expensive heat resistant materials?
I see you didn't read the paper, alas.
I know that that one common cause of microscopic stress fractures in
metals is heat flux. But the crack grows rapidly in a jet-turbine
because of the extreme rotary stresses? I think they x-ray the
jet-turbine components routinely on commerical aircraft to spot for
these cracks?
But anyway, my question was actually about the effect of jet-fuel
burning on steel used in teh construction of sky-scrapers - which is
also high-grade but not as high-grade as turbine-jet engine components
simply because I guess totally different stresses involved.
jmcc...@hotmail.com
investigation:
http://911busters.com/911_new_video_productions/WMV/DR_Griffin_Santa_Rosa_Oct_04.asx
He wrote about the 911 crash investigation:
911 Comission Report: Omissions and Distortions
Its really something else. I'm suprised you guys arn't ranting about it
here in aus.aviation
matt weber
you don't have to melt steel for the building to collapse. The WTC was
essentially an exoskeleton. It stayed up only as long the walls were
prevented from pulling away from each other. You don't have to heat
steel very much before it loses structural strength. When the cross
members that held the walls together gave way, the building follows
shortly. The resulting fire from the collision continued to burn for
literally weeks according to IR cameras used to scan the site, and
while Jet A may not have been hot enough to melt steel, other things
in the building that burned no doubt were hot enough.
JD
Not having broadband I can't look at a lot of this material, but I would
remind you that to collapse a building such as the WTC only requires the
weakening of structural members, possibly only a single member - once one
upper floor collapsed the impact of the mass above it on the structure next
floor down exceeded the design strength by a very large margin. And all
that may have been needed to collaps the member may have been distortion
due to uneven heating, allowing Euler buckling to take place.
There is no specific temperature that can be reached by any particular fuel
- it all depends on the conditions of combustion.
Structural steel is not far from mild steel, and, not being designed for
heat resistance bears no comparison to the alloys used in the hot parts of
turbine engines, which differ so much in composition that it is doubtful
whether the term steel really applies.
And then you have to consider that most of the kinetic energy of the
collapse would have ended up as heat, so this may help account for melting
of some components that were already pretty hot.
JD
Graeme Hogan
"matt weber" <matth...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:4alp621ulv6ld6cj6...@4ax.com...
Local furniture factory burnt down.Fire not hot enough to turn steel beams to molten pools, but sure as hell warped like a giand steppnig on a coke can.
Ric
<jmcc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147961379.3...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Really?? heres a big hint.....Aus stands for Australia. Australian
Aviation...get it?
Ric
>
Trevor Fenn
@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>Then why aren't we using mild steel for engine parts instead of very
>>expensive heat resistant materials?
>
> I see you didn't read the paper, alas.
>
> I know that that one common cause of microscopic stress fractures in
> metals is heat flux. But the crack grows rapidly in a jet-turbine
> because of the extreme rotary stresses? I think they x-ray the
> jet-turbine components routinely on commerical aircraft to spot for
> these cracks?
>
The howcome we don't use mild steel for engine cases and stator blades?
TF
AA
> <jmcc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1147961379.3...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> here in aus.aviation
>
> Really?? heres a big hint.....Aus stands for Australia. Australian
> Aviation...
>
not Australian lunatics.
AA
Matt.
highly specialised fields that are discussed. Most sensible folk don't
rant unless they know with some certaintly what they are ranting
about.
Matt.
pr...@prep.synonet.com
> "matt weber" <[1]matth...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> [2]news:4alp621ulv6ld6cj6...@4ax.com...
> On 18 May 2006 05:20:42 -0700, [3]jmcc...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >Can anyone explain to me if any of this paper is flawed with
> >regard to jet fuel? This physicist is saying that the WTC towers
> >could not have collapsed from the aeroplanes that hit them
> >because they were still standing afterwards - so the damage was
> >done - and also jet fuel can't melt steel and there was molten
> >steel reported by FEMA in the rubble of all three buildings - I
> >didn't know that WTC7 collapsed as well later that day.
Don't tel anyone at a steel works this, they use dirt to melt
steel. If they know it can't be done, it might all stop working...
The key is the amount of preheating the fuel and air get. After a
structure fire has been going for a while, the air temp can easily be
many hundreds of degrees before it reaches the fire face.
> >http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
> >It helps to have broadband to view the footage he uses in the paper.
> you don't have to melt steel for the building to collapse. The
> WTC was essentially an exoskeleton. It stayed up only as long the
> walls were prevented from pulling away from each other. You don't
> have to heat steel very much before it loses structural
> strength. When the cross members that held the walls together
> gave way, the building follows shortly. The resulting fire from
> the collision continued to burn for literally weeks according to
> IR cameras used to scan the site, and while Jet A may not have
> been hot enough to melt steel, other things in the building that
> burned no doubt were hot enough.
Watch the collapse carefully. What you will see is a zone of several
floors failing, then the stories above that area coming down like a
piston and shearing the lower floors from the outer structural walls.
Once the process started, it is positive feedback all the way down.
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
jmccr
that. And so this whole thread was a waste really because you all just
referred to your knowledge of the official report. But this paper show
evidence that is not known by most of us, like the collapse of the 46 storey
building WTC7 later that day, and how it wasn't hit by a plane and yet
collapsed totally just like the south and north tower. And if this paper has
nothing that is refutable then I believe too, based on that paper, that this
was a controlled demolition. I believe this for numerous coroborating facts
exclusive from the internet - such as the fact that media in Australia never
showed and still don't show or speak about the collapse of WTC7 - theres
only one reason why they would do that - cover-up? Why else would they avoid
talking about it?
Sounds kooky doesn't it? Perhaps if you viewed this paper you'd think its
not so kooky afterall:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
rgds,
jbm.
"JD" <j...@spamlesstpgi.com.au> wrote in message
news:446c...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
jmccr
repeat the official report. But the reason I am cynical about the official
report is because of Prof. Steven Jones paper.
I had never seen the WTC7 tower collapse on the same day or even knew about
it - and yet its a 42 storey 1986 steel-framed building (Rialto Towers in
Melbourne is 55 storey high).
\
<pr...@prep.synonet.com> wrote in message
news:87u07k2...@k9.prep.synonet.com...