Re: John, the landings and 11/9 are two different orders of probability - Archived Message
Posted by mack on August 2, 2019, 6:02 pm, in reply to "Re: John, the landings and 11/9 are two different orders of probability -"
Hi T, don't hold your breath. John seems to have a habit of ignoring evidence that conflicts with his misunderstanding of most of the basic facts of the event. Just to pick up on the office fires burning at 1000C - Nist said that the upper air temps in the towers was 1100C - which is pretty much the top end that could possibly be reached by a carbon based fire - and that carbon based material would be CHARCOAL (I don't think the towers were made of that). Wood - which would be the main fuel for the towers' fires, burns at ~600c. They never satisfactorily explain how they ascertained that 1100c temperature, so really it's just a wild guess and going for the highest number they could without someone picking them up. But consider that my wood-fired oven - an item designed to effectively combust carbon based material to very high temperatures, takes about two hours of feeding to get up to 800c, where in the towers the fires were in a far less controlled environment not designed to hold temperature and where fire would move from one place to the next having exhausted all the fuel in an area in ~ 15 mins, absolutely not enough time to significantly weaken steel. Also, steel, once heated and then returned to its original temperature, retains pretty much 100% of its original strength. And anyway, there was a lot of cold, hard, undamaged steel below the impact zones. So the fact that the towers accelerated all the way down (at ~0.65g) tells a story in itself. Newton would have known there was something amiss. John? Not so much. Cheers
|
|