An engine is designed to come up to operating temps evenly. When you start the engine a thermostat causes the water pump to circulate water only within the block, thus quickly bringing the block up to an even operating temp, only then does it START to open and begin circulating a small amount of water through the radiator, as temps continue to rise, the thermostat fully opens incorporating the external cooling system into the overall water jacket. The Temps of the fluid in the cooling system typically operate ABOVE the normal Sea Level boiling point, but because the system is pressurized it does not boil.

If the coolant leaks out, leaving you with an empty radiator, then the engine will be inordinately hot, because a leak means that pressure has been lost and that less and less fluid is removing heat from the block.

Pouring cold water into the system will cause the places it DIRECTLY contacts to cool down and as those areas do so they CONTRACT. But they are bolted to pieces which are still expanded because they are still hot. This localized contraction is what causes various pieces to crack. Radiators rarely fail this way, but water pumps and occasionally blocks will.

Leaving just water in your block should not cause it to crack, there are expansion plugs in the block which SHOULD expand/pop out to prevent this. If the cool down is VERY FAST they don't always work however.

None of this relates at all to the WTC towers.

Arthur

In Canada the expansion plugs are refered to as frost plugs. They will indeed pop before the block cracks but as in all such safety devices(such as fuses) they are not 100% effective.

Once they do pop though you cannot run the engine until they are replaced as all the coolant will run out once it thaws.

,,,, and yes, this has nothing to do with the towers.

One wonders why a physicist such as metamars would not know that water expands when it freezes or that anit-freeze/coolant both lowers the freezing point and raises the bioling point of the mix in the radiator. Perhaps he just forgets the first year chemistry he took.

This piece of the thread began with my criticism of the notion that the buildings failed due to losing "fire protection", and that the poor, defenseless WTC steel was just decimated by fire. The FEMA Fairy Tale believers claim that the steel consequently lost sufficient strength to maintain the weight of the building.

According to JayUtah, the steel can basically "lose strength" in only two ways. These are: softening and fracturing.

Again, according to JayUtah, fractures appear in metal of a composite structure after they are heated, and then cooled again. This fracturing leads to a loss of strength. Not only that, but tiny fractures are in metal structures regardless. Thus, another concern is the excacerbation of fractures that already exist.

So, yes, this is relevant, but since we are confined to qualitative comparisons, it's not terribly significant.

In fact, to pretend that the buildings could have collapsed the way they did, with the observed rubble without largescale fracturing, is absurd. This is true of FEMA Fairy Tale believers, as well as believers in demolition. Even if the columns failed by initially folding up, accordion fashion, with bends of 180 degrees, they certainly must have fractured later, as nobody found any pieces of metal that were 1000 feet long, when stretched out.

(Of course, bending and fracturing are not completely contradictory. I expect most all metal to bend at least slightly - perhaps only microscopically - before breaking.)

Thank-you Mr. FEMA and Mr. NIST, for the hundreds and thousands of broken column endings that you so carefully studied and catalogued to show us exactly what that otherwise vague notion of "column failure" must have entailed on 911.

NOT.

An automoble engine is designed specifically to take a range of temperatures from -50 to +400 degrees F for those parts of the engine that can be expected to actually operate at those temperatures.

The towers were not designed the same way.

When a column is heated it expands. If that column is not restrained at all then if it has not been subjected to any other forces it will contract upon cooling to the same dimensions as prior to being heated.

If it is standing upright and heated to a level at which it's Young's modlus is lowered enough and its dimensions are correct , it will succumb to lateral bending. This will occur well before the elastic heating phase. Now, upon cooling it will contract but will not unbend fully and thus its height will be less than before being heated.

If the column is not only vertical but also under a gravity load this will increase the bending and decrease the ability to unbend while cooling.

When a beam is joined to another structural member and is heated and sags then upon cooling it will contract to a shorter dimension than it was beforehand(because it remains sagged while it cools) and will snap the connection when it cools.

Well that's part of the problem isn't it. You seem to think that NIST's job was to answer YOUR questions.

It wasn't.

It wanted to determine how the LOCAL collapse began, because it is VERY LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC, that once a LOCAL collapse began 30 stories below the top then the rest was inevitable.

You don't BELIEVE that a Global Collapse will inevitably follow such a local collapse, but that's beside the point, what you BELIEVE.

Personally I trust the opinions of the many engineers and PHDs that performed the NIST study to know the difference between what was needed to be understood and what was obvious.

Because it is obvious, there is zip value in doing the kind of analysis you suggest.

Arthur

adoucette and co, give us a laugh, tell us what ACTUAL evidence you consider supports the official conspiracy theory.

What are the physics involved in almost half of the supposed highjackers surviving the crashes - never mind the passport?

Could the answer be they were not on the planes at all? This would also explain why their names do not appear on flight passenger lists.

Why is the mastemind Bin Laden not accused of the crime by the FBI?

http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

Come along - what ACTUAL evidence is there?

Debunking Conspiracy Theorists Paranoid Fantasies About 9-11 Detract From Real Issues

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm

yeah, no 1000 ft lengths were found. which is MOST curious in the case of the box columns which were imported from japan because america didn't having the capabiblity of making them that big. as i said before, these were WELDED all the way up, becoming in effect, one(four) 1000+ ft. beams. there is no way that predominantly horizontal shearing forces are going to break these monsters into neat thirty foot lengths without CDX.

i don't wanna hear all this 'straw man' tactics crap, because i can list all the propoganda techniques that the apologists use, and i can point out how they are used over and over on the web by agents from division five.

appeal to authority is a great one we can see just over this post.

'just trust us' 'we know better' 'these guys have degrees'

well, it just doesn't wash. this is a physics discussion. and a theoretical one, at that, seeing as any actual blueprint or building spec is locked up tighter that a box column.

destroying evidence from a crime scene is a crime in itself. when this crime is the biggest crime ever 'pulled' on american soil, destroying evidence is TREASON.

if NIST is the be all end all of analysis(just because it cost millions? HAHA! wanna buy a bridge?), then why, pray tell, will they not show their work? are they afraid they won't pass the test? why is no one allowed to see the evidence like blueprints and building specs?

the whole world is supposed to believe this simpleton powerpoint presentation that can't even make an accurate floor plan? these people who the best they can do is say, 'once the collapse was initiated' without ever qualifying what it was that initiated the collapse?
once again, i will point out that the official lie requires for the ENTIRE MASS of the upper floors to descend ONE WHOLE FLOOR at the accleration of gravity. where was the hat truss? you see, the builings hat truss transfered load from the perimeter to the VERY STURDY core.
this builing was a giant steel mesh. it could have crumpled, or tilted and buckled, but there is no way that it would just instantly fall apart the way it did without the use of explosives(which were reported, recorded, and can be seen and heard from umpteen different sources).

notice also, that they make a point of saying, 'we can only speculate', and yet, that's good enough for you? why is it that even though this be all end all of reports has come out, it totally disagrees with what the people who are defending it are saying?

the report CLEARLY states that fires got no higher than 750(or 800, it was a while ago that i read it) degrees, and for the most part steel was exposed to temperatures 250 degrees.
so why do i keep hearing, 'inferno', and 'at 1300 degrees steel begins to...' blah blah.

the higher temperature was only found in pockets. it was not reported as being all around the building at once.

i believe the picture of the bowing of the exterior columns was taken after the builing had already started to collapse. you can't have an open conspiracy without good planning and an army of shills.

here's a little quote from an architect who helped design the towers..........

'SWIRSKY: I imagine, when I saw the pictures of the implosion of the building, it looks like the fuel must have leaked right to the core of the building, and from there it was the massive explosion that caused the building to collapse. So it was something completely unforeseen, so far as the design criteria was concerned.'

of course, he said that before the thought police got to him.