Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us Event

tt335ci03cobra

tt335ci03cobra

Well-Known Member
Established Member
SVTP OG 4 Life
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
7,067
Location
USA
The clinton crime cabal may have played a roll here.

They could have double dealt with some hornets nests and stirred the pot too much. Not direct link as in planned or had a hand in it, but consequences of ego, greed and stupidity leading to it.

Just a hunch.
 
Last edited:
C

CV355

_
Established Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2016
Messages
3,272
Location
_
tt335ci03cobra said:
I’ve seen and read a lot similar to this as well.

Bottom line, terrorists and a handful of bad actors wanted buildings leveled. A smaller handful are likely still at large. There has been a huge political push to protect the left. I say look into the clintons.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
08mojo

08mojo

...
Established Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
2,681
Location
Atlanta, GA
CV355 said:
True. Virtually all material factors are affected by heat absorption. The problem is, heat energy transfers similar to a fluid, especially when a fluid/fluids are the conveying medium for convection or conduction. Point being, it's localized, and air gaps are horribly inefficient at thermal transfer. Beams weakened by the impact and resulting heat would certainly collapse under the weight of the stories above. Also, it's not like the 747 was the only fuel- anything flammable became fuel.

Here are the parts I've never seen a good answer for:
1) Freefall speed on both towers and WTC7 from "thermal weakening"
2) Visible detonations identical to squib blasts for thermite charges
3) Molten material seen pouring from windows in a completely orthogonal fashion, far distant from the impact location
4) Reported explosions that were not acoustically similar to structural failure

Even if it was an anomaly, doing it twice and failing in a near identical nature is where most of my skepticism comes in.

I was on WTC1 on 5/11/01. Somewhere, I have developed pictures of the trip to NYC, and you can see the distance between WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. I will never believe the official story, that WTC7 collapsed at free-fall from resulting structural damage from WTC1/WTC2. I do believe it was a terrorist attack, but there are just too many inconsistencies and physics questions that aren't addressed.
Click to expand...

There are three ways heat can transfer: conduction (objects physically touching), convection (the 'fluid' transfer you speak of) and radiation (electromagnetic waves). You are only considering one, maybe two. Air is an excellent insulator (or 'inefficient at thermal transfer,' as you say) against conduction--it has a very low heat transfer coefficient.

However, there is one method of heat transfer that doesn't give a shit if there is a medium to transfer the heat or not: radiation. Radiation can transfer heat through a vacuum (it's the only way we receive heat from the sun). I'd be willing to bet every dollar I have that most of the heat transferred to the steel structure of the buildings was through radiation.

It's easy to get lost in conspiracies as they pander to those that don't have a strong background in physics, engineering--science in general. It's obvious between your and other's arguments in this thread that you're being duped. Like I said, stick to conspiracies regarding human behavior--no one can prove or disprove those arguments.
 
C

CV355

_
Established Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2016
Messages
3,272
Location
_
08mojo said:
There are three ways heat can transfer: conduction (objects physically touching), convection (the 'fluid' transfer you speak of) and radiation (electromagnetic waves). You are only considering one, maybe two. Air is an excellent insulator (or 'inefficient at thermal transfer,' as you say) against conduction--it has a very low heat transfer coefficient.

However, there is one method of heat transfer that doesn't give a shit if there is a medium to transfer the heat or not: radiation. Radiation can transfer heat through a vacuum (it's the only way we receive heat from the sun). I'd be willing to bet every dollar I have that most of the heat transferred to the steel structure of the buildings was through radiation.

It's easy to get lost in conspiracies as they pander to those that don't have a strong background in physics, engineering--science in general. It's obvious between your and other's arguments in this thread that you're being duped. Like I said, stick to conspiracies regarding human behavior--no one can prove or disprove those arguments.
Click to expand...

You are correct about radiation, but it's a linear, direct transfer between the emitting object and receiving object. Conduction and convection are more prevalent in this case. I've worked on plenty of inductance systems- it's not the most efficient form of heat transfer out there. All of the debris and anything blocking a structural member would prevent radiation-type heat transfer from hitting the structural member whereas convection method can move around obstacles, and conduction through. Convection is essentially conduction with a middle-man.

I would advise you not to bet a penny that radiation was the main conveyance of thermal energy in a plane crash. The same reason that those little IR heaters won't heat your entire house as they claim... Conduction and convection are the primaries.

Anything visible on the IR spectrum is radiating heat to some extent, but it's negligible compared to conduction/convection unless the differential is massive (something glowing hot) and even then, C/C is still more effective for most things outside of scales we don't see day to day. Comparing fuel/combustibles to fission reactions is apples and potatoes. A few thousand degrees f vs 15-30 million f...
 
Last edited:
Revvv

Revvv

Infinity Poster
Established Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2017
Messages
10,189
Location
GA
Corbic said:
No shit.

You don't have to melt steal to a point of molten liquid. Heat it up, put a few thousand tons of pressure on it and watch it squish. One foor drops and all that force cause the whole thing to collapse under its own weight.

The conspiracy theorists would argue its impossible for a 5.56mm bullet to kill someone.. Now way could that small of a whole cause that much blood loss or do that much damage to an organ!!!
Click to expand...
...and yet more lives are lost to the 22 cal round than any other. A tiny 36 grain chunk of lead with a small casing, and outdated primer is lethal.

Allow me to step it up; a 17HMR will do extensive damage. I have a break barrel pellet rifle that spit out lead at around 1400fps. That little projectile can be nasty.

So yes, a commercial airliner can and did take down the WTC.

Sent from my [mind] using the svtperformance.com mobile app
 
5

598

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
1,503
Location
Frankfort IL
I also have a break barrel pellet gun that shoots about 1200fps. I have a crappy little wooden (flammable) shed that I sometimes wish would just burn so I don't have to tear it down. Next time I'm over there, I'm just going to shoot it with a pellet.



Total smart ass comment made fully in jest, but I couldn't resist injecting a little humor.
 
Great Asp

Great Asp

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
4,219
Location
St. Louis
The building columns never needed to melt. At a certain temperature they were brought to a point where the mass of the building above simply began to over come the available section modulus in compression (down). Once that happened, the mass began to accelerate and then it was game over.

I am not competing here, just stating that the building columns never needed to melt, if the fuel and combustible material were great enough to heat the building columns to the point where they were compromised.

E
 
T

Twisted2v

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
763
Location
USA
Great Asp said:
The building columns never needed to melt. At a certain temperature they were brought to a point where the mass of the building above simply began to over come the available section modulus in compression (down). Once that happened, the mass began to accelerate and then it was game over.

I am not competing here, just stating that the building columns never needed to melt, if the fuel and combustible material were great enough to heat the building columns to the point where they were compromised.

E
Click to expand...

See comment
#370-Trump claimed that the basement bomb blew out half the columns at the base, and it still held up the entire building.
#388-Steel columns remaining from collapse turn to dust in seconds. No jet fuel required.

One more for good luck. WTC leaseholder admits that he told them to "pull it" on building 7. Why would something already be rigged up to demolish a building in NYC?
 
Smooth

Smooth

Well Seasoned
Established Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
10,519
Location
Wisconsin
Twisted2v said:
See comment
#370-Trump claimed that the basement bomb blew out half the columns at the base, and it still held up the entire building.
#388-Steel columns remaining from collapse turn to dust in seconds. No jet fuel required.

One more for good luck. WTC leaseholder admits that he told them to "pull it" on building 7. Why would something already be rigged up to demolish a building in NYC?
Click to expand...
Ignoring the post right before yers? The hammer is swingin' tonight, FYI.
 
TK1299

TK1299

Meh
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
6,444
Location
Houston, TX
Twisted2v said:
Dgaf, fyi
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)


Top