Posted on 09/08/2009 3:42:57 PM PDT by Moseley
You don’t need oxy acetylene to melt steel enough to make it malleable. Look up “Sherman’s neckties.” During the Civil War, railroad rails were laid across bonfires, then picked up at either end and twisted or bent around trees. Civil War re-enactors do it and you can find videos on Youtube
Why don’t you come out and say what you think happened at WTC 7, tower north, tower south, the pentagon, and flight 93?
You don’t need acetylene, but you do need lots of oxygen.
I don’t know what happened, but I do believe that much of what did happen is classiified, and there is little chance that we will ever know. I am convinced that Al Quaeda’s involvement goes far beyond the airliners that hit the buildings.
No more than you get from the atmosphere. During the Civil War they were using nothing more than a large bonfire.
"Keep every man of his command at work in destroying the railroad by tearing up track, burning the ties and iron, and twisting the bars when hot. Officers should be instructed that bars simply bent may be used again, but if when red hot they are twisted out of line they cannot be used again. Pile the ties into shape for a bonfire, put the rails across andwhen red hot in the middle, let a man at each end twist the bar so that its surface becomes spiral.”
A large bonfire does use more oxygen, by developing an intense draft, and over time, heating the coke at the base of the fire to well past the melting point of iron.
There’s no coke used. It’s just a wood fire.
Freeperpalooza reminds me of an old troll on Ted Nugent’s message board known as marshallpalooza, as well as a few other names he registered. So if this is you, marshall, read this carefully:
You’re an unemployed loser and an idiotic troofer.
If you would like to pursue your misbehavior on Free Republic, then take note of how quickly you got the ban hammer. All of the gimmicks you learned from Oscar about phony screen names and proxies won’t work here. The mods ditch morons on the first or second post.
Why don’t you just go out and get a job?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL
http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2004/Oct04/101804/102204-02.html
Dylan Avery was interviewed for the recent National Geographic special I think it is called 9/11 and Science or something. He was trying to explain away the test results of the experts proving him wrong. he might have gotten confused and said Titanium instead of Aluminum. However, in the context of the discussion, his “slip” served to obscure the fact that his position was ridiculous. I don’t remember the exact discussion, but had he correctly said “aluminum” it would have emphasized the correctness of the “official” explanation of 9/11, in terms of the temperatures at which aluminum melts or that sort of thing.
In both of those incidents, the fuel was gasoline which burns at rougghly twice the temp of jet fuel. Also in each the was a free flow of air allowing complete combustion .
In the Oakland incident the bridge was not steel, it was steel reinforced concrete, where the heat spalled the concrete (this can happen at much lower temps than were occurring) and annealed the steel reinforcing rods. The fire also involved burning asphalt concrete.
I don’t know the structural details of the Birmingham bridge, nor the height of the bridge above the fire, but I suspect that it would have been similar.
In both of those incidents, the fuel was gasoline which burns at rougghly twice the temp of jet fuel. Also in each the was a free flow of air allowing complete combustion .
editor-surveyor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, sorry, wrong. The fuel was diesel, which is very similar to jet fuel. To fly an aircraft weighing 140 tons at 540 MPH requires a high-energy fuel with tremendous energy-to-weight ratio. The weight of the fuel must be low in comparison to its power output.
When National Geographic’s experts EMTC tested jet fuel’s ability to melt steel, the jet fuel fire reached 2,000 degrees F in about 1 minute and melted the steel beem in 3 1/2 minutes.
How do you think that steel foundries melt steel? They use what is essentially home heating oil — kerosene, or jet fuel.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WRONG. My father worked in a steel foundry in Buffalo, as an MIT graduate. They use essentially home heating oil, like kerosene — JET FUEL.
The gaping hole in the WTC twin tower would produce a huge draft of oxygen flowing into the fire from the winds aloft into the NYC area's tallest buildings. So there was a continual blast of oxygen into the fire.
When National Geographic tested jet fuel's ability to melt steel, their consultant EMTC found that the jet fuel reached 2,000 degrees F within 1 minute (this was an open pit with no air supplied) and melted a steel beam within 3 1/2 minutes.
Inside the WTC, the fire was in an enclosed space, accumulating the heat into the steel framework, with a giant hole feeding fresh oxygen into the fire from winds aloft..... exactly like a blacksmith's bellows.
Furthermore, the temperature of natural gas, coal, and oil is VERY SIMILAR to jet fuel.
Jet fuel powers a 140 ton heavier-than-air object at 540 MPH. Jet fuel must have low weight and high power. The energy per weight must be very high to fly an aircraft.
You don’t know what you even responded to. Read back on the thread to understand the conversation. Your answer was nonsense because you failed to do the above.
They use essentially home heating oil, like kerosene — JET FUEL.Ever heard the term "electric arc furnace"?
Or "basic oxygen furnace" as related to steel-making?
Again you are wrong.
You can look up the combustion characteristics in the Chemical Rubber Co. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, and you won’t end up looking like such a fool.
Your father may have worked in a foundry, but I doubt that he was charged with repealing the laws of physics or chemistry.
Last, the direction of the plumes of smoke rising from the WTC towers belie your statements re: the fire. Little wind was in evidence. The dense black smoke indicated a cool, struggling fire; not an efficient hot fire.
You should have look it up first, as your answer is wrong. The nearby Empire State Building was struck by a bomber which caused mostly cosmetic damage.
Let me get this straight - you are trying to compare a ten-ton prop B-25, top speed of about 250mph, probably flying a lot slower than that as it tried to find its way to a landing at Newark Airport, with a 670 gallon fuel capacity (and probably well below that, since it was looking to land), to a 100+ton 767, fuel capacity nearly 24,000 gallons, and fuelled for a cross-country flight, being driven at 450 mph into the WTC?
You sure are sounding like a truther to me - that's the kind of idiotic comparisons I've come to expect from them.
Actually, the 140 ton aircraft (fully loaded) was flying at 540 MPH.
Remember that kinetic energy increases with the SQUARE of the speed. So a volkswagen travling at 550 MPH has ONE HUNDRED (100) TIMES the energy of a volkswagen traveling at 55 MPH.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.