Do We Dare Discuss 911 With Poll

[NoDrama]

This building did not have its steel melt because it was normal combustibles burning. In the trade center, it was burning jet fuel. There is a HUGE difference in the burning temps of jet fuel versus wood and plastic.

Burning jet fuel on the ground burns at 550F, when it is compressed into a turbine engine and mixed with alot of oxygen it burns at 1500F. 99.9% of the jet fuel burned up in the initial explosion, there might have been enough fuel left over to burn for a couple minutes maximum. Why people think that the explosion didn't burn up all the jet fuel is beyond me. After the first couple minutes the fires were all ordinary office fires, which by the way were bandied about as the reason the fires weakened the structure. No where did the commission state that it was the jet fuel that caused the fire to get so hot, they say it was the office furniture that did it. So if office furniture can do that, how come it didn't do it in Beijing? Because office furniture cannot do that.
Jet A Fuel must reach ASTM specification D1655 (Jet A) [4]

Jet A-1 Jet A Flash point > 38 °C (100.4 °F) Autoignition temperature 210 °C (410 °F) Freezing point < &#8722;47 °C (&#8722;52.6 °F) < &#8722;40 °C (&#8722;40 °F) Open air burning temperatures 287.5 °C (549.5 °F) Density at 15 °C (59 °F) 0.775 kg/L to 0.840 kg/L Specific energy > 42.80 MJ/kg

Steel Melts at 2,500F, and loses 90% of its strength at 1300F. 550 is no where close to 1300.
The wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 550°C fire.

Lets not forget that all of the metal in the Twin Towers were covered with a slurry of Asbestos, basically asbestos was glued onto all the exposed metal work so that a fire would not have much effect. Guess how resistant to fire Asbestos is? you need fires in excess of 2500F to do anything to it. Even if a little was torn off by the plane, 99.9% of it is still in place. A floor on fire does not become heavier, all the floors below the impact site should have never collapsed, each floor is designed to hold up many more times weight than what they actually do, to get the floors to crush you would need approximately the weight of 8 WTC towers on top to cause such an effect.

 

[NoDrama]

That is categorically incorrect my friend. Progressive pancake collapses are more common than you realize. In eartthquakes, progressive pancake collapses happen all the time. Here are a couple of links.

.

Funny enough none of your links shows any steel skyscrapers collapsing in a pancake fashion except on 9/11. The first link shows wooden framed structures collapsing. You aren't trying to say that wood reacts to fire the same way Steel does are you? Any moron could tell you that wooden structures do not resist fire much if at all, did you also know that at one time in our history people actually burned wood for heat? Amazing, but I bet you never saw anyone burning steel for heat, know why? Steel doesn't burn.Wood does.


Might want to edit out that first link since all it does is prove you to be ignorant. BTW the Pancacke theory is only that, a theory. A Hypothesis presented by others to explain the miracle of building deconstruction and pulverization.

Lets not forget that WTC #2 only burned for 45 minutes before it deconstructed itself, which is barely enough time to get the metal warm. I have seen wooden structures take hours to collapse from fire. Somehow your being told to believe that steel can get soft and fail after just a small amount of time, and not just some steel, 110 floors worth.

Oh and Doc, im glad you finally explained to us that the building collapse classes you took have nothing to do with skyscrapers but have to do with fighting fires in conventional wood framed buildings. I don't know if you realized it, but giant steel skyscrapers don't ever fall, none ever have. So they don't give classes on skyscraper collapses, because there haven't ever been any.

 

[fdd2blk]

Funny enough none of your links shows any steel skyscrapers collapsing in a pancake fashion except on 9/11. The first link shows wooden framed structures collapsing. You aren't trying to say that wood reacts to fire the same way Steel does are you? Any moron could tell you that wooden structures do not resist fire much if at all, did you also know that at one time in our history people actually burned wood for heat? Amazing, but I bet you never saw anyone burning steel for heat, know why? Steel doesn't burn.Wood does.


Might want to edit out that first link since all it does is prove you to be ignorant. BTW the Pancacke theory is only that, a theory. A Hypothesis presented by others to explain the miracle of building deconstruction and pulverization.

Lets not forget that WTC #2 only burned for 45 minutes before it deconstructed itself, which is barely enough time to get the metal warm. I have seen wooden structures take hours to collapse from fire. Somehow your being told to believe that steel can get soft and fail after just a small amount of time, and not just some steel, 130 floors worth.

Oh and Doc, im glad you finally explained to us that the building collapse classes you took have nothing to do with skyscrapers but have to do with fighting fires in conventional wood framed buildings. I don't know if you realized it, but giant steel skyscrapers don't ever fall, none ever have. So they don't give classes on skyscraper collapses, because there haven't ever been any.

so what really happened?

 

[Balzac89]

Funny enough none of your links shows any steel skyscrapers collapsing in a pancake fashion except on 9/11. The first link shows wooden framed structures collapsing. You aren't trying to say that wood reacts to fire the same way Steel does are you? Any moron could tell you that wooden structures do not resist fire much if at all, did you also know that at one time in our history people actually burned wood for heat? Amazing, but I bet you never saw anyone burning steel for heat, know why? Steel doesn't burn.Wood does.


Might want to edit out that first link since all it does is prove you to be ignorant. BTW the Pancacke theory is only that, a theory. A Hypothesis presented by others to explain the miracle of building deconstruction and pulverization.

Lets not forget that WTC #2 only burned for 45 minutes before it deconstructed itself, which is barely enough time to get the metal warm. I have seen wooden structures take hours to collapse from fire. Somehow your being told to believe that steel can get soft and fail after just a small amount of time, and not just some steel, 130 floors worth.

Oh and Doc, im glad you finally explained to us that the building collapse classes you took have nothing to do with skyscrapers but have to do with fighting fires in conventional wood framed buildings. I don't know if you realized it, but giant steel skyscrapers don't ever fall, none ever have. So they don't give classes on skyscraper collapses, because there haven't ever been any.

I didn't realize we have a real expert in house. Both towers only had 110 stories?

A basic engineering assessment of the design of the World Trade Center dispels many of the myths about its collapse. First, the perimeter tube design of the towers protected them from failing upon impact. The outer columns were engineered to stiffen the towers in heavy wind, and they protected the inner core, which held the gravity load. Removal of some of the outer columns alone could not bring the building down. Furthermore, because of the stiffness of the perimeter design, it was impossible for the aircraft impact to topple the building.

However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.

 

[Balzac89]

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

link and these aren't just some guys on a message board.

 

[Balzac89]

so what really happened?

George Bush and skull and cross bones paid the CIA to hijack these planes and crash them to start a New World Order.

You would have to be retarded to think that this was some kind of plot by our own government.

 

[fdd2blk]

George Bush and skull and cross bones paid the CIA to hijack these planes and crash them to start a New World Order.

You would have to be retarded to think that this was some kind of plot by our own government.

i don't think anyone has yet to lay it all out in a timeline type fashion. they all scream "inside job", but only so they can argue. i am really curious as to how it all really played out. including the days and weeks ahead of time.

i'm sure i'll simply be replied to with insults though.

 

[NoDrama]

You do realize that your link was originally posted in September of 2001 right? How much time do you think it takes to come up with a sound hypothesis and then testing of the hypothesis? More than a couple of weeks. The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society is a tiny itty bitty group of materials students and professionals. Most College Campuses have more students than TMS has members.

More pictures of skyscraper fires that didn't collapse buildings

\
Guess how many of these collapsed? If you guessed ZERO you would be correct.

 

[NoDrama]

. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.

Perhaps you can explain how the other floors that had no fires, no damage and had been holding all that weight up for 30 years all of a sudden lost their weight holding properties? I mean they have been holding all that same amount of weight up this whole time. Things all of a sudden did not get heavier due to a fire.

110 stories and 105 stories, my mistake big whoop.

I will give $100 to the first person who can find where I said that I Think it was our own government who did this, you won't be able to find it because I don't know who did it and I am not about to start throwing guesses out there. All im calling to people's attention is the possibility that steel skyscrapers don't just collapse from fires. There are a huge amount of people who prospered heavily due to 911, you certainly cannot deny that.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Perhaps you can explain how the other floors that had no fires, no damage and had been holding all that weight up for 30 years all of a sudden lost their weight holding properties? I mean they have been holding all that same amount of weight up this whole time. Things all of a sudden did not get heavier due to a fire.

i think momentum is the missing piece of your puzzle

you got a car right? when that car is at stand still you can push it yourself yes?
so surely if you can push your car from a stand still then you'll beable to stop it by hand when its moving say 30mph?

110 stories and 105 stories, my mistake big whoop.

I will give $100 to the first person who can find where I said that I Think it was our own government who did this, you won't be able to find it because I don't know who did it and I am not about to start throwing guesses out there. All im calling to people's attention is the possibility that steel skyscrapers don't just collapse from fires. There are a huge amount of people who prospered heavily due to 911, you certainly cannot deny that.

it might be true that intact steel structures do not collapse in a fire. but wtc 1,2 and 7 had huge chunks missing and as such just arent comparable to any of the fires you shown

 

[NoDrama]

it might be true that intact steel structures do not collapse in a fire. but wtc 1,2 and 7 had huge chunks missing and as such just arent comparable to any of the fires you shown

Your right, WTC had damage equal to almost 1% of the building, HUGE!!!!! WTC#7 had absolutely no structural damage at all, the outside walls are not weight supporting, the interior box columns are what give it strength, not glass windows and aluminum frames on a cement facade.
How fast does weight accelerate in speed in 15 feet? Objects fall at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared. The collapsing floor took less than 1 second to impact if in freefall. Its not a major increase in Kinetic energy. Its not like the floors were falling at 30MPH, they initally would have met resisitance at a max speed of 7mph Those steel columns didn't just disappear or lose all structural properties all at once across the entire floor. It would have been much much more likely that any collapsing floors would have slowly deformed and then collapsed where the greatest damage was. You don't see this, what you see is absolute 100% failure on all 110 floors all within 10 seconds. Impossible. Angular momentum isn't even being taken into account here, top floors would have fallen at an angle due to the localized damage, that angle would have caused the top floors to fall off to the side, but you don't see this happen, what you see is the floors falling then turn to dust before they even impact anything. You should have seen the top of tower 2 snap off and fall to the side but you see it turn to dust in midair. The rest of the building just all fails all withion 10 seconds. A building designed to be unaffected by 245 KPH wind loads adding 5000 tons of lateral force.

[video=google;-736262871641918799]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-736262871641918799#[/video]

 

[fdd2blk]

Your right, WTC had damage equal to almost 1% of the building, HUGE!!!!! WTC#7 had absolutely no structural damage at all, the outside walls are not weight supporting, the interior box columns are what give it strength, not glass windows and aluminum frames on a cement facade.

so what really happened?

you gonna just keep ignoring the question?

can't argue out an answer so you're stuck.

try coming up with your own scenario, without having to use a youtube link.

i am really curious as to what actually happened and how it all transpired. can you clue me in? with details please?

 

[Balzac89]

If it an consolation I still think your an idiot.

 

[fdd2blk]

If it an consolation I still think your an idiot.

"If it's any consolation i still think you're an idiot."




i love hanging out with "the big boys".

 

[redivider]

here's a tad bit of info right off Wikipedia:

February 13, 1975 fire

On February 13, 1975, a three-alarm fire broke out on the 11th floor of the North Tower. Fire spread through the core to the 9th and 14th floors by igniting the insulation of telephone cables in a utility shaft that ran vertically between floors. Areas at the furthest extent of the fire were extinguished almost immediately and the original fire was put out in a few hours. Most of the damage was concentrated on the 11th floor, fueled by cabinets filled with paper, alcohol-based fluid for office machines, and other office equipment.Fireproofing protected the steel from melting and there was no structural damage to the tower. Other than the damage caused by the fire, a few floors below suffered water damage from the extinguishing of the fires above.

a few hours worth of fire and the building did NOT collapse. there was fireproofing on the steel which prevented the steel from melting.

firefighters on the scene described it as "a blowtorch". the fire spread through 6 floors of the building, and 130 firefighters were summoned to help fight it. it wasn't a small office fire like it's being downplayed now.

original story is available online, here it is:

Trade Center Hit by 6-Floor Fire

three-alarm fire broke out in the 11th-floor offices of the B. F. Goodrich Company in the north tower of the World Trade Center just before midnight last night, and spread through an inner-service core to the ninth and 14th floors.
"It was like fighting a blow torch,'' according to Capt. Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6, who said all of his men "got their necks and ears burned'' trying to get into the 11th Floor hall from a stairwell. None of the firemen were seriously injured.
MAINLY ON ONE FLOOR
The fire appeared to be confined primarily to 11th-floor office equipment, according to Deputy Assistant Fire Chief Homer Bishop. The damage to the service core was apparently confined to electrical wiring in and near the core.
The building is not equipped with a fire sprinkler system.
A total of 24 pieces of firefighting apparatus and 132 firemen fought the fire. Sixteen firemen were treated at the scene for smoke inhalation.
To reach the fire, the men boarded a freight elevator to the ninth floor, attached hoses to standpipes in stairwells on the 10th floor then advanced on the fire. Flames could be seen pouring out of 11th-floor windows on the east side of the building.
Fifty people, mostly maintenance men, were evacuated.
New York City's new fire code for office towers requires that floors lacking sprinkler systems be divided into units no larger than 7,500 square feet unless buildings possess special fire detection devices.
The new fire law also requires smoke-detection systems that in the event of fire will shut down the air-conditioning system, which can spread smoke and gases through the building, and return all elevators to the lobby floor.
The elevator provision is intended to override heat-sensitive elevator call-buttons which can summon elevators to fire floors as happened in 1970 at One New York Plaza and 919 Third Avenue, where a total of five deaths in two buildings were elevator-related. It was after those fires that the new fire law was enacted.
Fire Commissioner John T. O'Hagan has stated that he considers sprinkler systems, which are activated by high temperatures, to be the most effective means of fire-fighting in high-rise buildings.
"I'd sleep a lot better at night if the World Trade Center had sprinklers,'' he commented recently while discussing the plausibility of skyscraper fire such as the depicted in the current film, "The Towering Inferno.''

 

[ginjawarrior]

Your right, WTC had damage equal to almost 1% of the building, HUGE!!!!! WTC#7 had absolutely no structural damage at all, the outside walls are not weight supporting, the interior box columns are what give it strength, not glass windows and aluminum frames on a cement facade.

lol what has 1% damage got to do with it? the building had 100+ floors 1% is equivalent to an entire floor thats a significant size....

your trying to sit there with a straight face and say that this building has got no structural damage??




thats the damage on an obtuse corner the whole south face would have taken the brunt of the damage now i can easily imagine the damage to be just as bad if not worse down the entire side..

no structural damage?

 

[NoDrama]

However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.

NIST says:
"The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes."
(p. 183/p. 233 of the .pdf)

and

"Jet fuel sprayed onto the surfaces of typical office workstations burned away within a few minutes."
(p. 184)

Link to NIST's main report:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

 

[fdd2blk]

he must have me on ignore.

 

[NoDrama]

lol what has 1% damage got to do with it? the building had 100+ floors 1% is equivalent to an entire floor thats a significant size....

your trying to sit there with a straight face and say that this building has got no structural damage??

View attachment 1446725


thats the damage on an obtuse corner the whole south face would have taken the brunt of the damage now i can easily imagine the damage to be just as bad if not worse down the entire side..

no structural damage?

A HUGE chunk missing, well if you consider less than 1% HUGE then i guess you consider a penis of 3inches long as huge too then eh?

You could remove every wall of WTC 7 completely and it will still remain standing. What part of interior box columns weren't you understanding? The walls provide ZERO structural integrity. The walls were made of a red masonry and provide no support to the building at all. The interior columns and trusses provide all of the structural integrity. These were not damaged by falling debris. No jet fuel was sprayed on them, no airplane crashed into the building. the fires were minor.

 

[fdd2blk]

A HUGE chunk missing, well if you consider less than 1% HUGE then i guess you consider a penis of 3inches long as huge too then eh?

You could remove every wall of WTC 7 completely and it will still remain standing. What part of interior box columns weren't you understanding? The walls provide ZERO structural integrity. The walls were made of a red masonry and provide no support to the building at all. The interior columns and trusses provide all of the structural integrity. These were not damaged by falling debris. No jet fuel was sprayed on them, no airplane crashed into the building. the fires were minor.

did the BOMBS do it?


hahahhahahahahhahahahahahaha

you got NOTHING. none of you do. all you got is your "debate". what a joke.