AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Think again.

Would it really make sense to you that jet fuel burns colder than a cigarette lighter? I should hope not.

[img][/img]https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=513819&d=1590097170

Why would not make sense?
Lighters have ferrocerium

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Why would not make sense?
Lighters have ferrocerium

Ferrocerium is only the starter.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Think again.

Would it really make sense to you that jet fuel burns colder than a cigarette lighter? I should hope not.

[img][/img]https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=513819&d=1590097170

Provide the link with this. Your browser giving you different pages. I want to understand whats happening here.

If this true, the entire story on 9/11 changes and both sides of the debate are wrong about the temp of the jet fuel in open air.

Overheal

https://sciencing.com/temperatures-do-lighters-burn-8475271.html

From https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en-us&ei=JffGXpSxFO-Fggf67IeABA&q=how+hot+is+a+cigarette+lighter&oq=how+hot+is+a+cig&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAEYADICCCkyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAOgQIABBHOgUIIRCrAjoGCAAQFhAeOggIABAWEAoQHjoFCAAQkQJQ0e8IWNiVCWCInwloAHACeACAAaoCiAHPFZIBBzE0LjEwLjGYAQCgAQE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp

And

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/ww2/projects/jet-airplanes/how.html

From

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+hot+does+jet+engine+fuel+burn&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

https://sciencing.com/temperatures-do-lighters-burn-8475271.html

From https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en-us&ei=JffGXpSxFO-Fggf67IeABA&q=how+hot+is+a+cigarette+lighter&oq=how+hot+is+a+cig&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAEYADICCCkyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAOgQIABBHOgUIIRCrAjoGCAAQFhAeOggIABAWEAoQHjoFCAAQkQJQ0e8IWNiVCWCInwloAHACeACAAaoCiAHPFZIBBzE0LjEwLjGYAQCgAQE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp

And

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/ww2/projects/jet-airplanes/how.html

From

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+hot+does+jet+engine+fuel+burn&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

I need do more research before providing a definitive conclusion. Would be the biggest **** up since 9/11 if Jet Fuels burns that hot. Both sides claim it does not get that hot.

Right now i am uncertain. It may have something to do with the engine and the time was build. This guy claims older engines ran cooler and runs hotter due to combustion chamber type and gases released. I don't know yet, if your explanation applies to fuel burning outside the plane?

Here is a statement I found online.
While I do not have definitive values for the max TIT of a CFM-LEAP engine, a good estimate would be around 1500°- 1600° C (2732° - 2912° F) as this represents about the state of the art for gas turbines outside of a few military applications. This source quotes that the Pratt & Whitney F-135 can operate at TITs of 2000° C due to its use of a proprietary ceramic coating over single crystal nickel cobalt superalloys for the hot section. It is unclear whether that is a sustained engine power setting or simply a max operating temp prior to destruction. This is NOT representative of a typical aviation gas turbine, which run much cooler. I would stand by my original figure of 1000-1200° C TIT for earlier gas turbines eg PT-6, J85, J79, etc.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I need do more research before providing a definitive conclusion. Would be the biggest **** up since 9/11 if Jet Fuels burns that hot. Both sides claim it does get that hot.

Right now i am uncertain. It may have something to do with the engine and the time was build. This guy claims older engines ran cooler and runs hotter due to combustion chamber and gases released. I don't know yet, if your explanation applies to fuel burning outside the plane?

Here is a statement I found online.
While I do not have definitive values for the max TIT of a CFM-LEAP engine, a good estimate would be around 1500°- 1600° C (2732° - 2912° F) as this represents about the state of the art for gas turbines outside of a few military applications. This source quotes that the Pratt & Whitney F-135 can operate at TITs of 2000° C due to its use of a proprietary ceramic coating over single crystal nickel cobalt superalloys for the hot section. It is unclear whether that is a sustained engine power setting or simply a max operating temp prior to destruction. This is NOT representative of a typical aviation gas turbine, which run much cooler. I would stand by my original figure of 1000-1200° C TIT for earlier gas turbines eg PT-6, J85, J79, etc.

Well, what it shows is that the theoretical maximum burn temp of these fuels is much hotter than people previously thought about.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Well, what it shows is that the theoretical maximum burn temp of these fuels is much hotter than people previously thought about.

At 2000 degrees Celsius the steel be melting. A36 Steel melts at 1400+ degrees Celsius. Would prove the truthers right, but the Jet fuel caused it. This a good find and i need to look into it more.

It's a strange one has me puzzled right now.

King Mob

So cheerful, you can't explain the lack of aluminium oxide?
Then since you can't explain it, your theory is debunked.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

So cheerful, you can't explain the lack of aluminium oxide?
Then since you can't explain it, your theory is debunked.

If the jet fuel can burn at 2000 degrees Celsius or higher than the narrative in the truther community falls apart about the towers.

At those temps, the structural support would be in trouble, and would collapse.

It just proves the truther position, in one area, the steel melted and Iron melted.

This needs more research, no mainstream study claims fires reached those temps. No debunkers online does either.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If the jet fuel can burn at 2000 degrees Celsius or higher than the narrative in the truther community falls apart about the towers..

Cheerful, you can't explain the lack of aluminium oxide.
There was no nano thermite. That's the only explanation for the lack of aluminium oxide.

End of story.

Your theory is disproven

Overheal

In turbines they control those temperatures at the bleeding edge. They are a shrine to thermodynamic science. Keeping the engine from melting itself apart is an art and requires all sorts of factors. On one hand you want to cool the engine components but on the other the hotter your engine is the more efficient it generally is - this is because effectively the thrust is a product of the temperature and pressure difference inside and behind the engine. All sorts of cooling methods and ceramic coatings etc. protect the innermost part of the engine and stop parts from warping out of tolerance (which is tight).

Overheal

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, you can't explain the lack of aluminium oxide.
There was no nano thermite. That's the only explanation for the lack of aluminium oxide.

End of story.

Your theory is disproven

That’s also a thing: there should have been findings of aluminum oxide nanoparticles in the same place as the iron oxide nanoparticles. Aluminum oxide and pure iron are byproducts of the thermitic reaction and the iron would’ve oxidized when exposed to more oxygen.

Dohnjoe

Never seen this simulation before

https://youtu.be/0jrUsKiu2CU?t=849

Steel subject to jet-fuel fire collapses in minutes

https://youtu.be/0jrUsKiu2CU?t=1529

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

In turbines they control those temperatures at the bleeding edge. They are a shrine to thermodynamic science. Keeping the engine from melting itself apart is an art and requires all sorts of factors. On one hand you want to cool the engine components but on the other the hotter your engine is the more efficient it generally is - this is because effectively the thrust is a product of the temperature and pressure difference inside and behind the engine. All sorts of cooling methods and ceramic coatings etc. protect the innermost part of the engine and stop parts from warping out of tolerance (which is tight).

Solved it.

Planes on 9/11 used Jet A and Jet A-1 aviation fuel.

In open air it burns at 1,030 degrees Celsius, not 2000.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Solved it.

Planes on 9/11 used Jet A and Jet A-1 aviation fuel.

In open air it burns at 1,030 degrees Celsius, not 2000.

Also says it burns up to 4,000 degrees F

Dohnjoe

It's such a pity we can't get a structural engineer in here to immediately quash all this nonsense

Reading some related responses from structural engineers

Well, generally when you have a cascading failure, gravity takes over and free fall occurs. If youre asking why the building didn't topple over like a tree, That's a more a modeling question and different discussion point from whether thermal expansion can cause a structural failure.

I'm not able to look at their model, but to go back to the original point.

Is a paper/wood fire enough to collapse a structure: Yes

Does steel expand at elevated temperatures: Yes

Can it get overloaded due to thermal loading: Yes.

So if you want to talk about the free-fall mechanisms of how it collapsed to the ground, thats slightly different. In my industry, I generally care how it collapsed, but once gravity takes over---I care less.-- So i may not be able to help you on the modeling of the collapse. But I welcome you to read the NIST report which discusses the cascading failure quite a bit.

>To your knowledge has there ever been a collapse of a similar steel structure from thermal >expansion from a paper fire?

Its important to know that references to other structures will only get you so far on determining cause of collapse. The loads, the construction, the materials, the circumstances for any structural failure need to approached on the evidence of that particular structure. Not every structure is built the same, has the same material, and has the same load cases - its important to note this. I had a structure, a steel frame pipe rack at and oil refinery. There was a 1100 degree fire in one section of the piperack. That direct area had a structural collapse. But perpendicular to the pipe rack, several column had been pushed out of the way(no longer plumb) due to the steel members expanding and applying a large lateral load to the columns. Didnt collapse, but different loads, different situation--- still needed to be repaired. As for whether a steel frame structure has collapsed due to a internal fire. Yes. 100 percent. Happens a decent amount. Its why we put fire protection systems into place.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's such a pity we can't get a structural engineer in here to immediately quash all this nonsense

Reading some related responses from structural engineers

You avoided the news from yesterday. A top construction site in Canada posted the AE911 findings. The author also used his own words in the article. He obviously read the Hulsey report and appreciated it and showed no bias and understand the implications.

The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911T) has formally filed a Request for Correction with the NIST following a new and detailed four-year analysis by a team at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF).

The study says NIST made some fundamental errors in how engineers estimated the rigidity of the outside building frame and that the heat generated by the fire did not trigger “thermal movements” at a critical base plate support.

“In a typical building collapse (given a localized structural steel failure) WTC 7 would be expected to experience a combination of axial rotation and bending of members, resulting in a disjointed, asymmetrical collapse at less than free-fall acceleration,” the report states.

The study team undertook extensive computer and physical modelling, paying particular attention to the area around Column 79 which had been identified as the critical juncture of failure.

https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/others/2020/05/world-trade-center-7-building-did-not-collapse-due-to-fire-report

Cheerful Spring2

Of course in Aug 2008 this is what NIST originally claimed had occurred and got found out.
In a typical building collapse (given a localized structural steel failure) WTC 7 would be expected to experience a combination of axial rotation and bending of members, resulting in a disjointed, asymmetrical collapse at less than free-fall acceleration,” the report states.

NIST Aug 2008. Less than Free fall.
A free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the analysis shows...is that same time it took for the structural model to come down...is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You avoided the news from yesterday. A top construction site in Canada posted the AE911 findings. The author also used his own words in the article. He obviously read the Hulsey report and appreciated it and showed no bias and understand the implications.

???

The author of the piece makes no editorial remarks. The author doesn’t make any indication they read the report or align with its contents. They’re just reporting on the latest empty gesture of AE911.

Last year we were told the study would land and blow the lid off everything. It didn’t. Didn’t take long to start finding glaring problems in the work either.

We also were told a motion to inform the court of AE911’s findings being submitted to a judge were the beginning of some end - well over a year later now, and as predicted back then, this turned out to be only a perfunctory obligation of the courts to be petitioned by the public.

The latest news from AE911 is just more of the same from them, more desperate limping along that they can sell to their fans as a reason to keep funneling pocket money to them for postcards and other crap.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Of course in Aug 2008 this is what NIST originally claimed had occurred and got found out.
In a typical building collapse (given a localized structural steel failure) WTC 7 would be expected to experience a combination of axial rotation and bending of members, resulting in a disjointed, asymmetrical collapse at less than free-fall acceleration,” the report states.

NIST Aug 2008. Less than Free fall.
A free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the analysis shows...is that same time it took for the structural model to come down...is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”

No we are not going to go there.

This is a thread about the iron microspheres. We’ve done freefall to death a hundred times in a dozen threads. This won’t be another one. If you want to go again make another thread.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Also says it burns up to 4,000 degrees F

Open air temp provided. If you disagree complain to NIST and Popular Mechanics they both claim Jet fuel only burns at this temp in open air.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Open air temp provided. If you disagree complain to NIST and Popular Mechanics they both claim Jet fuel only burns at this temp in open air.

That doesn’t exclude the possibility of flash points in the fire that were hotter.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

No we are not going to go there.

This is a thread about the iron microspheres. We’ve done freefall to death a hundred times in a dozen threads. This won’t be another one. If you want to go again make another thread.

It was Dohnjoe who posted a different topic on here, and i am the one gets pulled up for it

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You avoided the news from yesterday.

Cheerful, you're avoiding the issue that the RJ Lee study has disproven your theory.

Don't try and deflect and rant off about free fall again.

The issue is the findings of the RJ Lee study, which indicated that there was no aluminium oxide present in the dust and nowhere near the level of iron found.

If a thermitic reaction had occured, we would see equal parts iron (specifically Iron oxide) and aluminium oxide.

But we don't see that.

You have no explanation for the lack of aluminium oxide.

Therefore, we have to conclude no such reaction took place.

Thus your nanothermite theory is proven false.
The AE9/11#s theory is proven false.

It's really funny that you were the one to bring up the study that disproves your own theory.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

That doesn’t exclude the possibility of flash points in the fire that were hotter.

This is your claim Nobody on the other side says the temps got that high. If you disagree ask the other sites to do a correction?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, you're avoiding the issue that the RJ Lee study has disproven your theory.

Don't try and deflect and rant off about free fall again.

The issue is the findings of the RJ Lee study, which indicated that there was no aluminium oxide present in the dust and nowhere near the level of iron found.

If a thermitic reaction had occured, we would see equal parts iron (specifically Iron oxide) and aluminium oxide.

But we don't see that.

You have no explanation for the lack of aluminium oxide.

Therefore, we have to conclude no such reaction took place.

Thus your nanothermite theory is proven false.
The AE9/11#s theory is proven false.

It's really funny that you were the one to bring up the study that disproves your own theory.

Kingmob you are on ignore.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It was Dohnjoe who posted a different topic on here, and i am the one gets pulled up for it

I’m just telling you where the discussion belongs. I’ve bumped the relevant thread.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is your claim Nobody on the other side says the temps got that high. If you disagree ask the other sites to do a correction?

Okay so jet fuel, 1100 C; cigarette lighter 2,200 C?

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

I’m just telling you where the discussion belongs. I’ve bumped the relevant thread.

Yes but i never brought it up here in the first place. You even thanked Dohnjoe for the post he made. Come on now tell others to follow the rules?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Kingmob you are on ignore.

Cool. Running away then.
(Also, not true I suspect.)

Could some one else ask him to explain the lack of aluminium oxide.
He apparently really doesn't want to acknowledge that point.