Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

Inject thousands of gallons of flaming jet fuel on a flood several stories below the top, then get back to me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Jet fuel does not burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel. But since you mention it. Before WW2 a B-25 Mitchell bomber did indeed hit the empire state building. That plane was loaded with high octane gasoline that burns at much hotter temp. than jet fuel or kerosene. Guess what, the Empire State is still there.

Here ya go.

 

http://history1900s.about.com/...0s/a/empirecrash.htm

 

At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.

 

 Still no collapse.

A B-25 bomber carries over 600 gallons of high octane aviation gas. Aviation gas burns way hotter than jet fuel or kerosene.

Fuel: 692 gallons. Provison for one 420-gallon drop tank

 

 The NIST says that fuel had no factor in the collapse. They said the collapse was caused by lack of water to fight the fire. So fire itself caused the collapse according to government reports.

 

In November 2008, NIST released its final report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center.[8] This followed NIST's August 21, 2008 draft report which included a period for public comments.[35] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[44] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor.

 

 And finally:  The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[8]

 

 

 

So now, News Flash: Largest sky scraper in Moscow burns out of control and does not collapse.

Originally Posted by Extra-260:

A B-25 bomber carries over 600 gallons of high octane aviation gas. Aviation gas burns way hotter than jet fuel or kerosene.

Fuel: 692 gallons. Provison for one 420-gallon drop tank

 

 The NIST says that fuel had no factor in the collapse. They said the collapse was caused by lack of water to fight the fire. So fire itself caused the collapse according to government reports.

 

In November 2008, NIST released its final report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center.[8] This followed NIST's August 21, 2008 draft report which included a period for public comments.[35] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[44] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor.

 

 And finally:  The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[8]

 

 

 

So now, News Flash: Largest sky scraper in Moscow burns out of control and does not collapse.

  • The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires. The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact. The structural system redistributed loads from places of aircraft impact, avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.
  • In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.
  • In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns, and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.
  • The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disaste...es/wtc/wtc_about.cfm

 

Extra,

 

Did you even read the original report?  This is embarrassing, even for you!

 

Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

Inject thousands of gallons of flaming jet fuel on a flood several stories below the top, then get back to me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Jet fuel does not burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel. But since you mention it. Before WW2 a B-25 Mitchell bomber did indeed hit the empire state building. That plane was loaded with high octane gasoline that burns at much hotter temp. than jet fuel or kerosene. Guess what, the Empire State is still there.

 

Jet fuel only had to burn hot enough to destroy the integrity of the steel, not melt it.  The B-25 crash was about 1945, B-25s weren't operational until WWII.

 

Plane specifications

B-25 weight 20,300 lbs to 30,000 lbs

Fuel capacity 675 gallons

 Boeing 767

23,890 gallons

Weight 350,000 lbs plus

 

You do realize the difference in initial crash damage caused by differences in weight and subsequent fuel burning -- 675 gallons vs. 23,890 gallons.  

 

The Empire State Building is structurally stronger than the Trade Center towers were  -- more concrete in the structure, rather than the hollow construction of modern skyscrapers.  

 

Even the small fire at the Empire State Building caused girders to bend.

 

The Moscow fire was on top on the building -- no weight bearing down on burning area.

Fit yourself for extra thick tin foil hat -- the Trade Towers case is in and settled, except for a few fanatics like you and Van Jones.

Originally Posted by interventor1212:
Originally Posted by Extra-260:

A B-25 bomber carries over 600 gallons of high octane aviation gas. Aviation gas burns way hotter than jet fuel or kerosene.

Fuel: 692 gallons. Provison for one 420-gallon drop tank

 

 The NIST says that fuel had no factor in the collapse. They said the collapse was caused by lack of water to fight the fire. So fire itself caused the collapse according to government reports.

 

In November 2008, NIST released its final report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center.[8] This followed NIST's August 21, 2008 draft report which included a period for public comments.[35] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[44] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor.

 

 And finally:  The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[8]

 

 

 

So now, News Flash: Largest sky scraper in Moscow burns out of control and does not collapse.

  • The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires. The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact. The structural system redistributed loads from places of aircraft impact, avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.
  • In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.
  • In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns, and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.
  • The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disaste...es/wtc/wtc_about.cfm

 

Extra,

 

Did you even read the original report?  This is embarrassing, even for you!

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Nice deflection Interventor. You just pulled the old switch and bait.

 

 WTC 7 was never hit by a single airplane. According to the government FIRE is the reason it fell. This in a building that was designed to resist fire. Nevermind that modern skyscrapers do not fall due to fire as illustrated by the fire in Moscow.

Originally Posted by interventor1212:
Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

Inject thousands of gallons of flaming jet fuel on a flood several stories below the top, then get back to me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Jet fuel does not burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel. But since you mention it. Before WW2 a B-25 Mitchell bomber did indeed hit the empire state building. That plane was loaded with high octane gasoline that burns at much hotter temp. than jet fuel or kerosene. Guess what, the Empire State is still there.

 

Jet fuel only had to burn hot enough to destroy the integrity of the steel, not melt it.  The B-25 crash was about 1945, B-25s weren't operational until WWII.

 

Plane specifications

B-25 weight 20,300 lbs to 30,000 lbs

Fuel capacity 675 gallons

 Boeing 767

23,890 gallons

Weight 350,000 lbs plus

 

You do realize the difference in initial crash damage caused by differences in weight and subsequent fuel burning -- 675 gallons vs. 23,890 gallons.  

 

The Empire State Building is structurally stronger than the Trade Center towers were  -- more concrete in the structure, rather than the hollow construction of modern skyscrapers.  

 

Even the small fire at the Empire State Building caused girders to bend.

 

The Moscow fire was on top on the building -- no weight bearing down on burning area.

Fit yourself for extra thick tin foil hat -- the Trade Towers case is in and settled, except for a few fanatics like you and Van Jones.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Once again,

 Jet fuel, no matter how much, does not burn hot enough to melt steel. In the debris of the WTC, the steel structures that failed were liquified.  According to engineering experts, the damage more resembled a mini thermite explosion.

  Once again, there was nothing in either building, that we know of, that burns hot enough to melt structural steel. Not only that, but jet fuel, in any amount, does not either.

Extra's post"

 

"Nice deflection Interventor. You just pulled the old switch and bait.

 

 WTC 7 was never hit by a single airplane. According to the government FIRE is the reason it fell. This in a building that was designed to resist fire. Nevermind that modern skyscrapers do not fall due to fire as illustrated by the fire in Moscow."

 

There were two-25,000 gallon tanks for the emergency generator in WTC 7.  The burning fuel contributed to the loss of integrity of the steel in that building, as well.

 

No deflection, you referenced the B-25 crash then switched to WTC 7. 

Extra's post:

 

"Once again,

 

 Jet fuel, no matter how much, does not burn hot enough to melt steel. In the debris of the WTC, the steel structures that failed were liquified.  According to engineering experts, the damage more resembled a mini thermite explosion.

 

  Once again, there was nothing in either building, that we know of, that burns hot enough to melt structural steel. Not only that, but jet fuel, in any amount, does not either."

 

Again, didn't have to melt the steel, only heat it enough to make the metal loose integrity. Review the NIST report again.

 

Incidents like this have happened a number of time, but you truther true believers still ignore them.

 

"Bridgeport, Conn. - A section of Interstate 95, the main traffic artery between New York and Boston, could be shut down for at least two weeks following a fiery tanker truck wreck that melted a bridge.

    It's going to be pain in the neck," Gov. John G. Rowland said after surveying the scene Friday.

    State police said a car apparently forced the tanker truck into a concrete barrier on the south-bound side of the interstate Thursday night. The truck carried 12,000 gallons of home heating oil, which fueled a huge blaze that sent a fireball dozens of feet into the air.

    The fire damaged the steel support beams that carry both sides of I-95 over an avenue, causing the overpass, which was new, to sag several feet."

 

http://www.wiskus.com/news.html

 

Got that, home heating oil -- a fuel that burns with less heat than jet fuel, caused the steel to sag and collapse.

Bestworking,

 

I know Extra well, he's posted a number of silly things over the years, such as FEMA camps, rail cars carrying slave prisoners throughout the US, etc.

 

I showed him the FEMA only had contingency contracts for camps for emergencies (including a copy of the contract) but he persisted. I dared him to show me a actual camp.  He posted a picture of a fenced in area in Mississippi.  I know that area -- its a marshallling yard for National Guard equipment -- one small fence, once rickety guard tower, a few lights and big muddy field. 

 

The railcars were those used to transport vehicles -- even used them myself. 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

You won't get anywhere trying to talk sense to extra. He thinks he knows more than doctors and scientists, and when he's proven wrong he just drops it and moves on to some other stupid thing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Your not any smarter in this forum than you were in the other one.

1678 Architects and Engineeers cry foul on official 9/11 report. I guess these guys are not scientists in your books.

 

http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

 

Your not any smarter in this forum than you were in the other one.


-----------------------------------

Still smarter than YOU, and smart enough to know that you don't know squat about anything.  BTW, that should be "you're" not your.  I'm smart enough to know the difference in a vestigial tail and a fluid sac cause by spina bifida.

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

Extra's post:

 

"Once again,

 

 Jet fuel, no matter how much, does not burn hot enough to melt steel. In the debris of the WTC, the steel structures that failed were liquified.  According to engineering experts, the damage more resembled a mini thermite explosion.

 

  Once again, there was nothing in either building, that we know of, that burns hot enough to melt structural steel. Not only that, but jet fuel, in any amount, does not either."

 

Again, didn't have to melt the steel, only heat it enough to make the metal loose integrity. Review the NIST report again.

 

Incidents like this have happened a number of time, but you truther true believers still ignore them.

 

"Bridgeport, Conn. - A section of Interstate 95, the main traffic artery between New York and Boston, could be shut down for at least two weeks following a fiery tanker truck wreck that melted a bridge.

    It's going to be pain in the neck," Gov. John G. Rowland said after surveying the scene Friday.

    State police said a car apparently forced the tanker truck into a concrete barrier on the south-bound side of the interstate Thursday night. The truck carried 12,000 gallons of home heating oil, which fueled a huge blaze that sent a fireball dozens of feet into the air.

    The fire damaged the steel support beams that carry both sides of I-95 over an avenue, causing the overpass, which was new, to sag several feet."

 

http://www.wiskus.com/news.html

 

Got that, home heating oil -- a fuel that burns with less heat than jet fuel, caused the steel to sag and collapse.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Another red herring redirect. Bridges are not specifically designed to resist fires. Buildings are. Now provide a link to a skyscraper that fell due to fire....... You can't because it's never happened.

 

 Now since you want to call me crazy, an engineer from United Labratories, certainly no tin foil operation, states about your flawed argument.

 

 

by UL whistleblower Kevin Ryan:

[NIST’s] test for fireproofing loss, never inserted in the draft reports, involved shooting a total of fifteen rounds from a shotgun at non-representative [structural steel] samples… it’s not hard to see that these tests actually disproved their findings. One reason is that there is no evidence that a Boeing 767 could transform into any number of shotgun blasts. Nearly 100,000 blasts would be needed based on NIST’s own damage estimates, and these would have to be directed in a very symmetrical fashion to strip the columns and floors from all sides. However, it is much more likely that the aircraft debris was a distribution of sizes from very large chunks to a few smaller ones, and that it was directed asymmetrically.2

 

 So according to the largest independent organization that certifies everything from building construction to you hair dryer, the NIST proved their own conclusions wrong in their own testing, but put it out as truth anyway.

 

 So again Interventor, show us a modern skyscraper building that has fallen due to fire..

 According to you it should be easy. And bridges don't count.


 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Your not any smarter in this forum than you were in the other one.


-----------------------------------

Still smarter than YOU, and smart enough to know that you don't know squat about anything.  BTW, that should be "you're" not your.  I'm smart enough to know the difference in a vestigial tail and a fluid sac cause by spina bifida.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Then you need to become a neurologist, because the one in the medical case I referenced did not remove a sack with fluid, and he ruled the tail a case of spina bifida.

 

More from the official guvment report. Take special note of the temperatures involved.

 

 

PM next goes on to discuss NIST’s assertions that the fires in the buildings were sufficient to weaken the steel to the failure point. However, NIST’s own tests show no evidence of this. While PM asserts in their book that “[steel] loses roughly 50 percent of its strength at approximately 600 degrees Celsius (1,100 Fahrenheit)” (pg. 38), NIST cites no evidence that the steel in the Towers sustained temperatures anywhere near this range. The highest temperatures NIST estimated for the steel samples was only 250 °C (482 °F), according to the metallographic paint tests they performed on WTC core column specimens.4
PM attempts to make a case that the combination of the aircraft impacts and the ensuing fires were sufficient to cause both of the structures to collapse.

Conspiracy theorists point to other high-rise fires, such as the one in 1991 at the 38-story Meridian Plaza hotel in Philadelphia, as proof that fire alone cannot bring down a skyscraper. And, in a sense, they are right: Fire alone did not bring down the towers. (pg. 40)

More facts. As we now see from the guvment report, fire alone cannot bring down a modern skyscraper,the exact argument that Interventor is trying to make.

 

In the case of Building 7, the NIST report tells us that structural damage played no role in initiating the collapse of the building, and that its collapse was due to “normal office fires”.5
One then has to wonder why PM does not consider the 9/11 Truth movement “in a sense right” about Building 7. But that aside, it is important to quantify how the structural damage played a role in the collapse of the Towers. We previously noted that the collapse of the Towers started on floors with less damage than other floors. In the case of the North Tower, the collapse started at the 98th floor6,  which had the least amount of structural damage out of all the damaged floors.7 Not only that, but the upper section of the North Tower started to collapse on the side of the building opposite to where the plane impacted.

There are, of course, no examples of skyscrapers , other than the Trade Towers having aircraft crash into them with thousands of gallons of fuel. 

 

The other skyscraper fires were fueled only with material in the buildings.  The B-25 incident involved only less than 670 gallons of fuel. 

 

Find a re*p*u*t*able site, it you can, not 911 truther sites. 

Then you need to become a neurologist, because the one in the medical case I referenced did not remove a sack with fluid, and he ruled the tail a case of spina bifida.

-------------------

You can "reference" about 2000 cases a year about "tails" (which are actually only fluid sacs and not true tails) caused by spina bifida. But the vestigial tails that appear at birth, only occurs about ONCE every 5 1/2 years. Those are the ones that for some reason weren't absorbed by the fetus. You're trying to call an apple an orange. It just shows, once again, you don't know squat about anything, and I doubt there is one person that takes your ramblings seriously.

Truthers are deep in their true believer miasma, untouchable by reality.  I've given up trying to reach them.  As their theories are exploded, they produce even wilder ones.  I've made one dare, they've never tried to match -- find the culprit!  There are plenty of people that can use explosives to some degree -- the military trains thousands, myself included.  However, the expertise to bring down a large structure is limited.  Those experts command large salaries and it's a limited community. From the know population, find the culprit.  Also, explain how a number of people bearing hundred of pounds of explosive and construction tools gained entrance to the towers, perpetrated the work and then disappeared -- no surveillance tapes, no entry records, no complaints of the noise, no one remembering them going and coming from the buildings, and no one coming forward and admitting complicity  -- except bin Laden. 

 

 

Originally Posted by OldSalt:

The magazine Popular Mechanics, which we all know is in cahoots with the government (no not really), says about the Twin Towers and WTC 7:

 

http://www.popularmechanics.co...s-world-trade-center

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Old Salt,

 The popular mechanics article you reference has been thoroughly debunked.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/n...-reality-part-1.html

 

Originally Posted by Road Puppy:

Holy McCrap!  People are STILL "Loose Change-ing" over 9/11?

 

LMAO!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Do you ever have an original thought or do you stick your finger in the air, join the crowd and try to look intelligent?

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

In Putin's Russia, tin foil hat wears you, including moose and squirrel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 So now, it looks like your argument is dead in the water. You sat the jet fuel burning caused the collapse. It looks like from the government report that the jet fuel would have been expended in the first ten minutes. The building stood for an hour or so after impact.

 

Notwithstanding, in an interview in 1993, the lead engineer in the WTC buildings stated that the buildings were designed to survive a direct impact from a707 jetliner and survive the subsequent fire due to the jet fuel.

 

However, someone evidently did consider that problem, and that someone was John Skilling, the original WTC lead engineer. When interviewed in 1993, Skilling told the Seattle Times that:

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there."ii

 

 

 The WTC buildings were a very robust design.

 

THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.  ... 4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.  ... 5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE.i

 

 

 So now we see that the WTC buildings were designed to withstand the direct impact of a 707 aircraft and survive the   jet fuel fire that followed. According the Popular Mechanics and the government, that fire lasted for less than 10 minutes. Jet fuel burns at less temperature than neccessary to  weaken the structure and the jet fires lasted less than 10 minutes.

 Coupled with the fact that the building was designed to withstand a simple office fire, there is no explanation for the collapse of the building within the scope of the official government report.

Extra likes to ignore or leave out some of the facts.  The Popular Mechanics article states:

 

"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

 

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

 

Originally Posted by OldSalt:

Extra likes to ignore or leave out some of the facts.  The Popular Mechanics article states:

 

"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

 

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 No Salt,

 It's you who don't get it. You post links but have no concept of what the information contained in them means.

 First of all. ALL modern skyscrapers are designed to withstand just such fires, as illustrated by the fire in Moscow. How hot do you think it was?  Do you think there were rugs and office furniture in it?

 Iff office fires in high rises hit 1832 degrees then none of them would withstand any fires at all and would become serious hazards in a fire, therefore they wouldn't be allowed to build them that high.

 

   What you are missing here is the stringent fire standards that these buildings are required to meet. They are required to be able to withstand a fire.

 

  From your article, Popular Mechanists makes it's claim because there were melted steel girders in the  bottom of the WTC debris. Over 1600 structural engineers, many are the leading experts in their field say the fires didn't do it. That the steel was more reflective of a mini thermite explosion.

 

 FEMAs own research leads them to believe thermite. http://911research.wtc7.net/wt...etallurgy/index.html

 

Ans excellent paper written by a engineer.      http://www.journalof911studies...sWTC911SciMethod.pdf

 

From the link.

Now we’re going to apply conservation of momentum as we consider the collapse of Building

Seven at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001 about seven hours after the collapse of the towers.

13

I have timed a number of controlled demolitions that are done by explosives. The time it takes

for the roof to hit the ground is near freefall time, a little over. To find the freefall time of the roof

with nothing in the way, find the height of the building (y) and then calculate the time by solving the

standard equation for the time of fall (y = ½ gt

2). For controlled demolitions, buildings fall close to

freefall time, just as the descent of WTC7’s roof-corner is close to freefall time. But with no

explosives (the “official theory&rdquo and the law of conservation of momentum, material below the roof –

including intact steel columns – must significantly slow the motion of the roof. What is happening? It

is as if something is moving the material out of the way beneath the roof, something like explosives,

for example. Furthermore, it appears impossible for this 47-story steel-frame building to collapse

rapidly and symmetrically onto its footprint as it did when

random fires and damage were present;

could the support columns fail abruptly, simultaneously?

14

 

 

 And that's the rub. All the structure of  WTC 7 failed at exactly the same time. Impossible without controlled demolition.

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×