9/11 Science Club! What Are Specific Heat and Heat-Energy Content?

Thanks for revealing the complete bankruptcy of the official story by resorting to transparently desperate ad hom without a shred of substantiation of a single source. Now we know you really have nothing to say, and that you yourself don't even believe your position. By the way that seems to be a Thunderbird insignia on the aircraft Lt. Col. Razer is next to, an elite flying team.

But while we are on the topic lets see what Pilots for 9/11 Truth has to say about three-time flight school drop-out Hani Hanjours 330 degree spiral dive into the Pentagon at 500MPH which, oh yes, just managed to hit the side with all the civilian accountants in it the day after Rumsfled announced $2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon, the equivalent of four entire yearly Pentagon budgets. It was never brought up again after the day "the world changed." He "chose" this flight path even though it would have been much easier to hit the Pentagon from the Potomac side from which he was approaching. Uh huh.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

Military Patriots Question 9/11

Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS

Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS Aeronautical Science, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Retired U.S. Air Force command fighter pilot. Former instructor; U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School. Combat time over Iraq. 20-year Air Force career. "I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back. The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned."

 

Wood stoves are also not trying to support millions of tons of weight.

 

See.....this is where people always get so annoyed. They hate those pesky logical details that sneak into the "official" BS story that causes them to think. Easier to swallow the BS I suppose.

 

LOL, Guy Razer has a mug shot.

 

The only rational alternative explanation is that demolition explosives were implanted into both buildings prior to the airplane crashes. Evidently, the demolition engineer overslept by 45 minutes and missed his cue.

 

He also apparently flew not only Air Force fighters but bombers as well. But it doesn't stop there. Supposedly he also flew Naval strike craft and Russian MiGs. Color me skeptical to say the least.

 

The damage of the 767 impacts upon the towers was significant.

The approximate kinetic energy of the 767 impacts KE = (.5)(Mass)(Velocity)^2 Assumng that the Mass of the 767 was 200 tons (181,820kg) and the initial velocity at impact was 500mph (223.5m/s) the KE is

(.5)(181,820)(223.5m/s)^2= 4,541,159,047.5 joules which equates to approximately 1.08 tons of TNT (Using this conversion calculator http://metricsystemconversion.info/ton-of-TNT-energy-equivalent-to-joule-J.html?func=detail)

Given that the energy delivered by the impact of the airliners was approximately equivalent to energy released in the explosion from a ton of TNT the assumption that the damage caused by the 767 was insignificant is invalid.

Additionally, the fires didn't need to be hot enough to compromise all of the steel in the entire WTC tower, the fires only needed to be hot enough to compromise a number of key load bearing structures. Hence the analysis presented in the OP is pretty irrelevant.

Whats more, bentham publishing (The journal in which the Jones paper was published) is not a reputable scientific publication as demonstrated by their publication of a Hoax paper.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090615/full/news.2009.571.html

 

"Jet fuel is just kerosene, burns no hotter in open air than lighter fluid. But they could count on dumbed-down Americans not to know this, so they could yell "JET FUEL!"
Jet fuel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel"

This is one of my favourites and is an immediate disqualification from the species Homo Sapien.

Ok - it works like this.
"Kerosene" is a family-name for petrochemicals with ethane chain-lengths greater than eight.
Those with chain-lengths eight or less - that is, 'octane' - are referred to as "Gasoline"s or "Petrol"s depending on who you talk to.

The nine-and-above family are referred to as "Kerosene"s or "Paraffin"s depending on who you talk to.
And they range from household "Kerro" (equiv Lighter Fluid), through Jet-A which runs airliners, up through JP-4 which is used by fighter jets, all the way into JP-8 through JP-12 which powers missiles and orbital rockets.

It is ignorance of this basic stuff that just invalidates all, I mean ALL, of your other Truther claims. You know nothing, about anything, so ... why do you open your trap? Why not just shut up? Huh? Why not just be a silent little dumb speed-hump?

And for your further information:
Jet-A1, which airliners use, burns in free air at 2300 K. That's approximately 2000 Celsius. That's hot enough to LIQUEFY carbon steel, especially older carbon steels. That's why the firefighters described rivers of molten metal falling down. Because there were rivers of molten metal falling down.
It's called a "Delta" class fire, and it's very difficult to put out.

Source? Heh, if you rely on Wikipedia for anything.... hey I've already told you why you should shut your stupid cake-hole.
Source: some very helpful engineers at Shell Aviation. Go talk to them, they're nice guys.

What's next on your idiot plate?
Are you going to open your anus and emit the words "Free fall" ? That's another one of my favourites.
You must be superman. You can just the exact height of a huge object at a distance with your bare eyes. You can judge it's exact fall speed to less than 1m/s with your bare eyes. You can misinterpret what the term "Free fall" means with your bare eyes.
Go and look up the term "Accelerated Load", though I strongly doubt your brain can cope with the data.
The only brake on the falling process was the tiny, tiny amount of time it took each floor to collapse under the accelerated load of the floors above it. Pancake, pancake, pancake.

 

Sigh, so you think that steel dissipates heat instantly and efficiently. I though you mentioned science in your OP.

 

I love how you shills use such entertaining insults mixed in with your claptrap. At least you are fun to read. But this alone shows you are a blithering idiot:

Try squirting kerosene on a steel beam and buring it and see if the beam melt. I guarantee you'll be squirting it forever.

Send me some real "debunkers," I want a big fish. The little ones I throw back.

 

Office building are full of flammable paper.

One need not melt steel to get structural failure. Just hot enough for the Young's modulus to decrease. You do know what Young's modulus is, don't you?

 

Paper only burns at a few hundred degrees Celsius and most of it would have been consumed fairly quickly, but yes - I agree, other components in the building would have "helped", particularly the styrenes and things that chairs and other equipment are made of.

 

Ah see, there now we all know you're just a Troll.

A real tinfoil-hat nutter would have waded in with a ton of theory (all or most of it wrong) and engaged. Instead you just repeated the party phrase and FATALLY used the "Shill" buzzword.

So, I'm guessing you are a mildly intellectually disabled, middle-class fourteen year-old, living in your parents' garage, with nothing better to do than troll political forums. That also points at sociopathic tendencies - which means unless you are a really fast thinker your career options are mighty limited. You could consider Journalism, perhaps? But you'll have to learn to not overuse stock phrases, and also:

-you really need to learn to spell and check grammar, cos you are coming across as really, seriously impaired.

(Btw, of course you know as well as I do that if it's Jet-A then yes, it will melt, as will most of the surroundings - next monday ask your Chemistry teacher if you haven't already.)

My apologies if you really are seriously impaired and in a wheelchair (I doubt you are) and this is your only pass-time, but man, you really need to get a better hobby. Trolling is so 20th Century these days.

 

wow man
shoot the messenger already!

 

A! Science Club ..... Please do think about this, its not just a matter of energy, its a matter of focused energy, you see, the problem with the fires being that in order to get the observed result, the fire would have to heat up ( to the point of failure ) very specific parts of the building. If the fire heated up random parts of the building, then the "collapse" event would not be straight down and the building would not have been totally destroyed.

am I communicating well ...... or?

 

The collapse started in a TUBE( the perimiter walls,and it was NOT 'straight down')

 

Please elaborate upon what you mean by collapse started in a TUBE
also in the case of the towers, if the collapse event was not straight down,
the towers would not have been totally destroyed.
and in the case of WTC7, the descent was close enough to vertical, and
given that the north & west walls are seen to be moving together without
deformation, the only conclusion possible is that ALL of the structural support
failed at exactly the same time.

 

Show your math on the above statements. It seems your information is faulty.

 

No,if you can't be bothered to know how the twin towers were constructed,I'm not going to tell you

 

I can understand that the towers were a "tube in tube" construction
what I was asking for was what was the relevance of this feature of the
building that made it "collapse" in the manner that it did and allegedly in
response to an alleged airliner crash & fire(?)

also note that WTC7 was not a Tube in Tube design and it also
"collapsed" and this time not even an alleged airliner crash,
whats up with that?

 

If you can't see the relevance by now,I can't tell you anything.....as for building 7,all anyone ever saw was the 'undamaged' side,the side facing the towers was heavily damaged,and with the uncontroled fired burning,spelled the end for 7.

And 'alleged airliner'crash?.....there was NOTHING alleged about those planes that hit the towers

 

by the evidence of the video showing the "collapse" of WTC7
one can only conclude that ALL of the support for the North & West
walls of WTC7 had to have been removed ALL at the same time.
How is that done with chaotic fires?

 

It was a (*)(*)(*)(*) poor structural design because it had been built on a con-ed power plant,although it would probably been safe till the end of it's designed life,they didn't forsee debris from 2 110 story builings falling on it..the penthouse collapsing first give you an indication where the failure started

 

so .... because of poor design, the structure, in response to chaotic damage,
fell straight down in uniform acceleration, and keeping its shape on the way down.
RIGHT.......
................................... & I'm the Easter Bunny(!)

 

Really?

Then how did the South and East sections come down?