doc111
Well-Known Member
I found yet another link that deals with fire induced collapse, which I expect NOBODY to actually read. lol!
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02028.pdf
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02028.pdf
The great thermite debate.
- Thread starter hazyintentions
- Start date
doc111
Well-Known Member
Jeez, another insult? How did I miss this one? lol! I don't have a communications degree. I do posess a handful of undergrad degrees and a Master's in chemistry, but that's a different discussion entirely. You're right, I don't understand all this "technical" shit (although I've seen NONE of it from you). My 15+ years of firefighting experience and all that goes along with it: I am also a paramedic (that alone is a 2 year degree), a Hazmat technician, a rescue technician, building collapse technician, confined space rescue technician, swift water/ice rescue technician. I have a handful of other credentials but it's all boring stuff that wouldn't interest you so, now that you have a little background on my experience and education, would you mind NOT saying I know nothing? Thanks!
Ok, let's address some of your points in this post. Steel can't be heated up to glowing red in a campfire huh? I agree you aren't going to create "molten steel" with a campfire and yes, I'm well aware of the need for Oxygen to create "molten steel". Molten steel has never been proven at the WTC. Steel loses much of it's strength as it's heated. Here is a table which illustrates this with a link to the site I got it from:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html
Dude get over it? No thanks. I am making comparisons with like sized buildings with similar construction. A 4 story building isn't the same. The building I put up is almost exactly the same size as WTC7 and surprisingly enough it was built in the same manner as 7 the only thing different was that the Beijing building had a fire which was massive compared to the SMORES fires in WTC 7. And yet it didn't soften or melt or collapse.Wait a second! You keep making all these "comparisons" yet when someone else throws up some evidence debunking some of your claims it suddenly isn't "comparable"? LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude, get over it! Buildings HAVE collapsed from fire alone. Ignoring more facts?What about the fact that the sprinkler system on the fire floors was disabled since huge jets flying at over 500mph severed the standpipe supplying the sprinkler systems. Also, much of the asbestos was believed to be sheared off, making fire retardant a non issue when dealing with the WTC. 9/11 was unlike anything in the history of the planet. There is NOTHING you can truly compare to it. NOTHING!
When you say "Buildings" have collapsed from fire alone you are trying to deceive people into believing that skyscrapers have collapsed too, but no skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire alone except WTC7, and the way it free fell for 80% of its descent tells you that 80% of the building was removed from the support equation. Fire on 3 floors cannot cause 80% of the support of a structure to all fail at the same moment to cause the building to fall into its own footprint. Just can't happen, the odds are so miniscule that I would fill a trillion pages with zeroes trying to convey how damned impossible it is.
doc111
Well-Known Member
It didn't "free fall"!
None of those buildings free fell, because buildings DON'T FUCKING FREE FALL! Even in a controlled demo, they don't just free fall and neither did any of the WTC buildings! lol! I don't need to attempt to "deceive" anyone. The facts I put up speak for themselves. You are saying that none of my "comparisons" are "comparable", yet none of yours are really that "comparable" either now, are they? I've said it numerous times, I'll say it again; there has NEVER been an event that comes close to comparing to 9/11. You make claims like "No steel frame.....blah, blah, blah", yet when confronted with actual proof that contradicts what you say all of a sudden it's not "comparable"? Just address some of my links. Show me what exactly isn't possible, and so on and so forth. Come one man, do it! lmfao!!!!!! More leaving out of facts? How about that there was a 10 story gash with main supporting beams taken out? Fires alone, huh? Pfft!This table shows the temperature of the METAL, not the temperature of whatever it is that's burning. Just because steel loses 50% of its strength at 1000f does not mean you only need 1000f flame to get it that hot. To get steel that hot in under 45 minutes you are going to need something MUCH MUCH hotter. For example, take 1 cup of water in a pan on your stove and time how long it takes to boil at maximum heat, now try the same thing with 10 gallons. Huge time difference in how long it takes to boil isn't it? I mean it's a DRAMATIC difference of probably 1,000 times longer to boil the larger amount. I am somehow expected to believe that steel lost more than 50% of it's strength in under 45 minutes and all from an ordinary fire? Skyscrapers are seriously over engineered, each beam is actually only having to hold about 20% of its intended max load.
Another point of contention is that all the metal framing in the building is connected to all the other metal in the building. Its all just one big heat sink that can probably remove most of the heat through convection alone.
Buildings don't free fall? How come NIST says WTC7 free fell then?It didn't "free fall"!
from http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfmNIST said:
BTW NIST says that the damage to the outside of WTC7 was only to the facade and was not structural nor did it play a role in the collapse. According the NIST, WTC7 is the ONLY skyscraper to have ever fallen from fire alone. Fire ALONE!
My comparisons are spot on, same building size, same construction methods, except the fires were hundreds of times worse.
dukeanthony
New Member
Jet Fuel burns at 3000 degrees at the thrust side of the engine
[youtube]nnnjIzamnJo[/youtube]I found yet another link that deals with fire induced collapse, which I expect NOBODY to actually read. lol!
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02028.pdf
there's plenty of 'fire' arguments....
doc111
Well-Known Member
Thermodynamics my friend. Steel conducts heat fairly well. It doesn't take that long and water can't possibly illustrate the thermodynamic properties of steel. You're also assuming that heat conductivity is limitless in steel. It is not. The rest of the steel will sink SOME of the heat but not nearly enough. Stick a flame on one end of a 6 foot piece of steel and touch the opposite end. It will take a LONG time and a lot of heat to get the opposite end heated up. Exactly how long is going to depend on a lot of variables. Fuel burned and size/heat of the fire being the 2 big ones. Also, assuming the heat disspates instantly, as you are assuming would mean that the point where the flame touches the metal should be much cooler due to the heat sink properties you're talking about. I'll bet you put that flame to the steel for 1 minute and I bet the opposite end is barely warm while the end the flame touched probably will give you a 3rd degree burn instantly!
please keep arguments clean. doc111 is a very respectable person who puts his life on the line to save others. His opinions are just as good as mine or anyones. Who volunteered to go to Japan and save people from the Nuclear disaster? doc111 that's who.
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
how about the word strength as a technical specification do you know the what strength even is refering too?
i was gone for few hours
you dont and it has nothing to do with temperature or cohesion so fact check on . . . .
your half assed attempt to make me look stupid, has further cemented my thought that your nothing other then a wikipedia punk
here is some wiki junk for you to learn
Ultimate tensile strength (UTS), often shortened to tensile strength (TS) or ultimate strength,[1][2] is the maximum stress that a material can withstand while being stretched or pulled before necking, which is when the specimen's cross-section starts to significantly contract. Tensile strength is the opposite of compressive strength and the values can be quite different.
do you know what compression is, and if strength is the opposite measument well then the weight and gravity argument associated with you charts mean poopy
i have simply said that the media and whom ever, you, have ignored the facts of molten steel being a part of this biulding destruction and iam even more conviced now that somthing being covered up for whatever reason, it doesnt have to mean anything other than that so keep trying at your feeble attempts to disprove facts
i was gone for few hours
you dont and it has nothing to do with temperature or cohesion so fact check on . . . .
your half assed attempt to make me look stupid, has further cemented my thought that your nothing other then a wikipedia punk
here is some wiki junk for you to learn
Ultimate tensile strength (UTS), often shortened to tensile strength (TS) or ultimate strength,[1][2] is the maximum stress that a material can withstand while being stretched or pulled before necking, which is when the specimen's cross-section starts to significantly contract. Tensile strength is the opposite of compressive strength and the values can be quite different.
do you know what compression is, and if strength is the opposite measument well then the weight and gravity argument associated with you charts mean poopy
i have simply said that the media and whom ever, you, have ignored the facts of molten steel being a part of this biulding destruction and iam even more conviced now that somthing being covered up for whatever reason, it doesnt have to mean anything other than that so keep trying at your feeble attempts to disprove facts
doc111
Well-Known Member
No they aren't! Again, You are conveniently leaving out HUGE facts to bolster your argument. WTC7 didn't fall from fire alone. It had a HUGE gash which took out key structural elements.
"Essentially" means "literally" now? Come one man! lol!
doc111
Well-Known Member
If you are so "right" then why do you feel the need to insult me? Trying to make me look more stupid than I am capable of on my own or are you somehow threatened by my "lack of knowledge"? Usually people who are confident they are correct don't feel the need to insult others. That alone shows your level of "intelligence".
doc111
Well-Known Member
Thank you my friend. I appreciate that.
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
oh ya and red hot aint hot enough
white/yellow hot is molten not red with pressure i must add constant pressure or extreme heat
white/yellow hot is molten not red with pressure i must add constant pressure or extreme heat
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
becuase you try and try at legnth to disprove the facts and im dont care to cradle your emotions as well as your ignoranceIf you are so "right" then why do you feel the need to insult me? Trying to make me look more stupid than I am capable of on my own or are you somehow threatened by my "lack of knowledge"? Usually people who are confident they are correct don't feel the need to insult others. That alone shows your level of "intelligence".
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
i would like to set things straight , i dont believe in conspiracy theories the government tries to hide everything they do for what ever reason, so anyhting that the government trys to hide doesn't mean shit to me, it just means a lie has been propagated
and i dont really care for the lies
lairs and narcs are the same to me
and i dont really care for the lies
lairs and narcs are the same to me
doc111
Well-Known Member
And what is so wrong with me having an opinion? Does that make me "stupid" or a "punk", just because we don't share the same views? You don't have to cradle my emotions, but calling me names and saying "I don't know anything" or implying that I'm stupid is completely unnecessary and serves no purpose in bolstering your argument, in fact quite the contrary. I am allowed to have an opinion ya know, and this is VERY personal to me. I lost a lot of brothers that day and if I thought for 1 millisecond that the govt. perpetrated/knew anything about it, I would be at the head of the line demanding blood. My ignorance and experience aside, what "proof" have you offered up? I really haven't seen much, except some terms like "compressive strength". That's awesome that you know a thing or 2 about metals but I'd like to see more substance and fewer insults from you if you want to be taken seriously.
doc111
Well-Known Member
Red hot is certainly hot enough to bend/weaken steel. I'm not sure we're having the same conversation anyways.
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
i can tell you lots but every single time im gonna have to have some site or some piece of information regugitted by somone else then by me and if you dont want to listen then find out yourself then im not going to explain things nice
im sorry if im come off a little abrassive but i have little patients for conjecture mixed with niave assumptions, and beleive me i dont think your stupid, but i do think you think your smarter then your are, it takes very little time to understnd metal or its proccess but you have to have a technical perspective or it all means butkiss
im sorry if im come off a little abrassive but i have little patients for conjecture mixed with niave assumptions, and beleive me i dont think your stupid, but i do think you think your smarter then your are, it takes very little time to understnd metal or its proccess but you have to have a technical perspective or it all means butkiss