Windows Breaking From Heat
- Thread starter TruthSeeker1234
- Start date
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
i always figured they are fires inside the building, seems logical enough given we know th ebuilding was on fire
You have never seen that picture before?
And we must believe that you want to investigoogle 9/11 ??
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
wait a second, this contradicts your earlier statement that steel, being a good conductor of heat, would wick away any heat before it could get red hot
keep seeking that truth, keep seeking
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
No, that was pror to 1950 or so, when plastic and other synthetic materials became common. Smoke color has nothing to do w/ fire intensity. There was nothing cool about that fire.
Except that the plane struck above the 78th floor. And higher up was where the really big fires were, fire travels up in case you never noticed that fact. And BTW, that fireman also reported many bodies on the 78th floor from that "small, isolated" fire.
Yes, it's all about videos w/ you guys.
You realize all this has been brought up before and debunked long before you came around, don't you? Do troofers ever learn anything, or do they just keep repeating the same nonsense like it's some kind of mantra?
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
same deal with the "faster than free fall" claims, CTers are quicker to accuse the govt of somehow violating the laws of physics than consider they might be wrong about something
You are travelling through another dimension...
My goodness, not even twelve hours go by, and just look at the carnage... I guess another recap is in order for TruthSeeker1234.
When I left for work this morning, I had a couple of new one-sided discussions under way. One was this thread:
sigh.
This morning, I among others tore up his notions that WTC 7 fell "symmetrically," while discovering that, while he can quote the Laws of Thermodynamics, he sure doesn't understand them. Or can distinguish them from Newton's Laws of Motion.
Any reply? Of course not. Just a wild swerve while he shifts the focus to the Eagar paper, for reasons unknown, and he proposes that a coffee table and a saw might be a good model for the WTC tower collapses.
sigh.
Undaunted, we have this thread, itself begun as a rephrased question from another thread, started to avoid acknowledging an excellent answer in that exact same thread. As if to clean the slate, we began anew:
The table showing an actual count of windows broken by the fire was produced again, but was the correction acknowledged? Of course not. Instead, he demanded pictures.
Pictures were produced -- crystal clear, annotated, with full provenance! And the reaction?
Incredibly, his unfaltering ability to never answer anything is not limited to questions of a conspiratorial nature! I had this curious exchange, seemingly a ray of hope:
The final chapter in this bizarre epic was just too much for me to handle. TruthSeeker1234 is calling for one-on-one moderated debate.
Why would anybody want to debate him in the first place? What's in it for me? I submit the sordid tale above as evidence that TruthSeeker1234 either does not understand the concept of debate, or has no real interest in it. I actually suspect the former at this point. If you have any interest in such a debate, I suggest you start volunteering some answers when questioned, or no debate with you is even possible.
TruthSeeker1234, is it possible that, back in the first thread you abandoned, you mistook one of my Parthian shots (down at the bottom) for sincere advice, and followed it? If so, keep it up -- you are very, very near to that lofty goal. Congratulations.
And thanks for the entertainment.
My goodness, not even twelve hours go by, and just look at the carnage... I guess another recap is in order for TruthSeeker1234.
When I left for work this morning, I had a couple of new one-sided discussions under way. One was this thread:
To this, I wrote a lengthy, detailed reply. And... no answer. Not even an acknowledgement.
sigh.
This morning, I among others tore up his notions that WTC 7 fell "symmetrically," while discovering that, while he can quote the Laws of Thermodynamics, he sure doesn't understand them. Or can distinguish them from Newton's Laws of Motion.
Any reply? Of course not. Just a wild swerve while he shifts the focus to the Eagar paper, for reasons unknown, and he proposes that a coffee table and a saw might be a good model for the WTC tower collapses.
sigh.
Undaunted, we have this thread, itself begun as a rephrased question from another thread, started to avoid acknowledging an excellent answer in that exact same thread. As if to clean the slate, we began anew:
Let's ignore, for the moment, that TruthSeeker1234 has never, ever articulated why he believes this, or where he got the idea from. Made it up, as far as I can tell.
The table showing an actual count of windows broken by the fire was produced again, but was the correction acknowledged? Of course not. Instead, he demanded pictures.
Pictures were produced -- crystal clear, annotated, with full provenance! And the reaction?
Yes, that's right, he "doesn't see" the evidence. How he can move his goalposts so many times without seeing what he's running from is left as an exercise.
Incredibly, his unfaltering ability to never answer anything is not limited to questions of a conspiratorial nature! I had this curious exchange, seemingly a ray of hope:
Alas, my hopes were soon dimmed, and finally dashed, as the answer -- like so many others -- just never comes. I'm still waiting for that one, too.
The final chapter in this bizarre epic was just too much for me to handle. TruthSeeker1234 is calling for one-on-one moderated debate.
Even if we ignore the apparent backpedaling, this is just too much.
Why would anybody want to debate him in the first place? What's in it for me? I submit the sordid tale above as evidence that TruthSeeker1234 either does not understand the concept of debate, or has no real interest in it. I actually suspect the former at this point. If you have any interest in such a debate, I suggest you start volunteering some answers when questioned, or no debate with you is even possible.
TruthSeeker1234, is it possible that, back in the first thread you abandoned, you mistook one of my Parthian shots (down at the bottom) for sincere advice, and followed it? If so, keep it up -- you are very, very near to that lofty goal. Congratulations.
And thanks for the entertainment.
NIST wrote that comment in their debunking paper. The problem is that it wasn't continuously that way in all areas. The NIST debunking paper goes on to point out that as soon as a new influx of air (say from a broken window...) hit a region it would flash up in a very hot fire. From most of the videos I've seen the majority of the smoke tends to be grayish with occasional outpourings of black smoke, which would then change color.
plastics and such add to the smoke color but I believe lack of air caused the majority of the dark smoke.
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
What I thought was telling was that the smoke never varied in volume. It came out of the towers at the same rate throught the entire event.
If fires are burning out and cooling down, they'll produce less smoke, won't they?
If fires are burning out and cooling down, they'll produce less smoke, won't they?
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
The air, like everything in nature, would find the path of least resistance. The air would burst out of the weakest point. As the air is being pushed a compression wave forms ahead of the object that is pushing it. That means the air would find a weak point to burst out ahead of the collapsing floors.
If I recall correctly from watching videos, in controlled demolition the explosions usually start from the ground up. The "squib" videos from WTC start from the top down. For the video minded, here's a link which shows some controlled demolition:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/extreme_machines/1787846.html
Oddly, the windows do not blow out in the buildning.
If you look at the video, the section of the buildning above the impact point is still relatively intact when it starts to collaps. The wieght of that section provides the necessary inertial force to start pulverising the material below it as the structure below it gives away. Remember, you have alot of weight bearing down on steel heated to near melting temperatures. And several hundred tons of building material traveling at terminal velocity has a lot force behind it.
Like I said above, the air will first find the weakest point to burst out of first. What is shaping the jet is the shape of whatever that weak point is. which is usually a glass window. The floors in the WTC were not one big empty clear space. The floor in an office building is a maze of walls enclosing office spaces and ventilation ducts. The air would not flow evenly through the floors. It would be ducted through various areas eventually finding the weakest window and bust out in a jet.
Like i said above, the floor was not a clear empty space like the book would be. The air would have been ducted by the configuration of the office walls. In essence the air would have been focused into smaller volumes (just like air in a ventialtion system) and not evenly across the entire volume of the floor.
Done.
Last edited:
Not really. Smoldering fires can produce a LOT of smoke. And really hot fires can cause less (think the bed of coals at the bottom of a bonfire -- hotter than the flame but very little smoke). I'm not sure you can judge the hotness of a fire by the amount of smoke. I'd ask firefighters and fire experts for sure.
Additionally there are many scenarios possible where one fire begins to die down and another flares up keeping the amount of smoke fairly constant.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Truthseeker1234, yes! Yes! My God, yes! Hundreds of posts in and you have finally stated something so true, so real, so obvious that it has restored my faith in you as an actual seeker of truth.
You admit above that you have looked at a photo, you have seen what the photo appear to show you, and you can't figure this out under anybody's theory.
And you are absolutely right! You can't figure it out. Because you know absolutely nothing about engineering or physics or explosives or politics. You don't understand the building's construction. You don't understand the damage done on the inside. You don't understand how fires spread. You don't understand.
And all that's left is for you to take one little baby step more. Just one tiny little step. And shut your fracking mough about stuff you can't figure out, jerk!
That's what the experts are for. Listen to them. Trust them. Sleep peacefully in their arms. And, if you ever get the least bit of an idea in your head, just keep repeating, "I am incapable of figuring this out."
Belz...
Fiend God
That's not the columns, seeker. That's fire you see through the window openings.
CurtC
Illuminator
His statement about glowing columns, when it's obvious that we're looking at fire through window openings, makes me think that he is just trolling here. No one could really be that stupid and operate a computer. Could they?
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,796
Please provide evidince that WTC7 was 16 feet from WTC1 specificaly all the parts of WTC1 that hit it.