Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.

[MileHigh]

Tinman:

It doesn't matter if the fires were oxygen starved or not.  Just the fact that they were burning means that they were producing a continuous flow of heat power within the confined space of the building.

What do you think "room flashover" is in house fires?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqMVm72FMRk

It's exactly the same thing.  Stuff burning in the room creates heat.  The heat has nowhere to go so the ambient temperature in the room keeps increasing.  Eventually it gets so hot that everything in the room spontaneously catches on fire by itself - it doesn't even need to be in contact with a flame.

When the planes crashed into the towers, they created cavities with limited air flow and lots of combustible material.  The temperature inside those cavities rose to the point were the steel got soft and failed.  This is a no-brainer.  If you have a source of heat and nowhere for that heat to go then the temperature will climb.

The current source is the continuous source of burning material.  The capacitor is the cavity in the building.  The voltage across the capacitor is the temperature.

That's it - it's a no-brainer.  Eventually the burning inside the towers brought them down because of the effects of the trapped heat on the structural steel.

These were very big buildings and as you increase your scale, then materials get proportionally "softer."  Nobody doubts that steel is very strong stuff.  But if an aircraft carrier were to crash into a dock, then the steel structure of the aircraft carrier bow will crumple like it's made of soft butter.  The bigger you go the "softer" or "weaker" the metal gets.

The WTC towers were big and big means the steel is proportionally "weaker."  The burning fires made the temperature too high for the already "weak" steel.  It is no surprise at all that the towers came down.

MileHigh

[MarkE]

A voice tells tinman what he wants to hear:  A person who thinks he's found free energy because he does not understand how to use an oscilloscope also found bits of aluminum and iron in the wreckage of a steel framed, aluminum facaded building, impacted by more than 80 tons of aircraft aluminum.  Therefore it must be "nano thermite".

[profitis]

Yeow @markdansie what's with the intensity.sterlinga's just a reporter not a mass killer

[allcanadian]

@MH

These were very big buildings and as you increase your scale, then materials get
proportionally "softer."  Nobody doubts that steel is very strong stuff.  But if
an aircraft carrier were to crash into a dock, then the steel structure of the
aircraft carrier bow will crumple like it's made of soft butter.  The bigger you
go the "softer" or "weaker" the metal gets

Have you been drinking MH, the metals tensile strength does not magically change with size.
AC

[tinman]

   

Yes you keep repeating stuff that seems intuitive to you but you won't be bothered to do the research.  Did you read the NIST report?

I have already answered this question. Lets have a look at that NIST report-along with the FEMA report.
FEMA report states that the 767 was traveling at roughly 590MPH when it hit the tower
NIST report states that the 767 was traveling at around 546MPH when it hit the tower

First-what would you say the hight above sea level was where the planes impacted the two towers. Im guessing around 700 feet at best.
It is interesting to note that boeing states that the engines thrust for a 767 at 700 feet would max out at 330MHP,but the plane would begin to shake it self to peices at 220MPH at this altitude due to the density of the air. It's all there in plain !plane! english for you to read.

Like i said before,yes i have read many reports,and like your beloved NIST report,they are just comical,and your very own physics proves them to be incorrect.

Gee, you can save builders lots of money with your insights.  According to your claim there is no reason to apply vermeculite to structural steel.

Please supply links and pictures of any other steel framed highrise building that has collapsed due to fire.

So it is your contention that the NIST report is pack of lies?

It is a pack of-we dont know what the hell were talking about-->but they seem to be able to defy the laws of physics with there plane speeds.

Well tinman I have a prime example of just how far you've put your head up your ass.  In early 2002 a petrol tanker overturned on an overpass in the Highway 80 / 880 / 580 interchange in Oakland California.  The heat from that fire weakened, and caused collapse of the undamaged overpass above it.  Heres a nice picture for you:  http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/29/us/collapse2.600..jpg.

LMAS-are you serious Mark lol. And you say i have my head up my ass. I think you just ploted your own demise. If you cant see the difference between the two situations or circumstances,then maybe grade school would be more up your alley.

LOL are you trying to claim a degree in physics?

Unlike some,no-->but you seem to be lacking a bit in the area.

Ground effect adds lift making it relatively easy for even remedialy pilots in training to practice flying just above the runway.  Ground effect makes it so that it takes skill for a pilot to touch down at a specific point on the runway.

Or a specific building in a strange country. Not to forget the 330* spiral dive to line up this extreemly small land mark with the big barn doors.
Just wondering if you could post a clear picture of the impact on the pentagon,and show us all where exactly the wings and engines impacted the building?,and how none of the street signs or structures were hit or damaged as they should have been if a 757 where on such a flight projectory.

.

Each side of the Pentagon is nearly 0.2 miles wide.  It's one heck of a big barn door.

Here is a little reserch for you Mark. Find me just one pilot that could execute that flight path with sucess,and then we will move on to the fact that a bloke that couldnt even get his cessna licence due to lack of skills could execute that same flight path with such accuracy

If you are talking about doesn't know how to operate an oscilloscope ex-physics professor Steven Jones we all know why he retired early.And no doubt little people inside his head filling it with ideas.

You truly are a small man Mark,and without heart. Due to his reserch and discoveries(the truth),he was forced out-shuned for doing such reserch. It has nothing to do with his abilities as a physicist. He(unlike you) was able to open his eyes,and show courage in what he did. He is 10x's the man you will ever be,and i now know what sort of a person you really are. Your a closed book,and your HD is full-no room for new data with you. You are old school etched,and have no room for the truth or the new that go's against what you think is correct. Well i got some bad news for ya-->the walls are closing in,and soon there going to smack you right between the eye's. Your little world is going to come crashing down around you. This may knock some sense into you,but i have the feeling that you will just go off line. Like i said before,you belittle everyone you think is beneath you,but when one of the big guns takes you on,you never take up the challenge-you hide like the small man you are.