Oh Goodie! ... More on 911 (inside job) :)

GrowRebel said:

Just start on page 38 and work your way up until it was proven to be bogus. There was a lot of discussion concerning the bridge, it was just use as a strawman argument to side step the real issue.


NoDrama already posted a source to prove your theory is wrong.


Source? Link?


Not the entire bridge, and there is no question about what happen with the bridge, because there was nothing unusual about what happen. Unlike the WTC towers.


Because if it were true ... other steel frame fireproof skyscrapers would have fallen it their own footprint in seconds due to fire ... and that hasn't happen.

Click to expand...

RickWhite said:

Actually, your assumption about what other buildings would do is incorrect.

Click to expand...

RickWhite said:

The other buildings were not hit by a jumbo jet and they were constructed differently.

Click to expand...

Source? Link? I didn't think so ...

RickWhite said:

The design of the WTC made it much more susceptible to such an incident, this is explained in great detail by numerous engineers.

Click to expand...

Oh really? Well in that case you will have no problem providing a link to their "great detail" Right? I won't hold my breath though.

RickWhite said:

As for the overpass, I can't seem to find a link; since you are so confident in your statement can you explain how this was disproved?

Click to expand...

RickWhite said:

I did notice however that you made several references to the laws of physics, did you study physics in college?

Click to expand...

NoDrama said:

I got this from:..http://www.nowpublic.com/world/world-trade-center-building-designers-pre-9-11-claims-strongly-implicate-towers-should-have-remained-standing-9-11


The World Trade Center (WTC) Towers[1] were the largest buildings ever conceived in 1960.[2] This meant that there was a considerable amount of planning:
“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… 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.”[3]
In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the WTC Towers to be “the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind.”[4]
Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage. According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, “all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.”[5] As well, “Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.”[6]
In the planning of the buildings the designers considered potential attacks, and the WTC towers were designed to survive them. Between Early 1984 and October 1985 it was reported that:
“The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks, spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability…”O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.’”[7]
One of these hypothetical examples was put to the test in the 1993 WTC bombing. This attack prompted more discussions about the safety of the WTC towers. In response to these concerns, WTC building designer John Skilling explained that they “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… A previous analysis carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.”[8]
This statement indicates that the designers considered Boeing 707 airplane impact speeds of 600 mph. It seems likely that the designers considered this impact speed for the reason that the cruse speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph.[9] In comparison, both of the planes that hit the WTC Towers on 9/11 were Boeing 767’s. The FEMA report indicates that Flight 11 flew at a speed of 470 mph into the North Tower, and the second plane flew at a speed of 590 mph into the South Tower.[10] Not only were these speeds anticipated by the building designers, the Boeing 707 is similar in size to the ones flown into the towers on 9/11. According to Jim Hoffman, the planes used on 9/11 were “only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.”[11]

In fact, Hoffman observes that “a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size.”[13]
Commercial airliners typically fly with jet fuel, so it is not surprising that the designers would consider this problem. In 1993, Skilling explained that they performed an analysis that concluded that the WTC towers would survive the impact and jet fuel fires from a Boeing 707:
“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… The building structure would still be there.”[14]
In fact, no steel-framed building structures had ever collapsed due to fire before or since 9/11.[15] This further supports Skilling’s analysis about the possibility of jet fuel destroying the WTC towers. According to Paul Thompson, “the analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964.”[16] This ‘white paper’ concluded that:

“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”[17]
Thompson explains that “besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.”[18] In fact, many of the building documents are unavailable because “the building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access—and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access—to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns.”[19]
The lack of access to WTC building documents remains a problem to this day. Indeed, in March of 2007, Steven Jones and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice finally obtained the WTC blueprints from an anonymous individual.[20]
Although the WTC was “over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it,” [21] the designers did not apparently consider controlled demolition:
“Skilling—a recognized expert in tall buildings—doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load. ‘However,’ he added, ‘I'm not saying that properly applied explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage.’ Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down. ‘I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.’”[22]
One week before 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson reiterated the fact that the towers were designed to survive plane crashes:
“Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, ‘I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,’ though does not elaborate further.”[23]
Also according to Robertson, the WTC towers were “in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”[24]
Not only were the towers designed to survive plane crashes, they were designed to potentially survive multiple plane crashes. This fact is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:
“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”[25]
Demartini appeared to be so confident that the towers would not collapse that he stayed behind to help save at least 50 people.[26] As a result of his actions, he lost his life on 9/11.
In summary, the World Trade Center designers not only contemplated jet fuel fires—they considered the plane crashes that would have caused them. They anticipated impact speeds of 600 mph as well as aircraft similar in size to the planes used on 9/11. The towers were designed to survive substantial column loss along with 100 mph winds. They were intended to survive bombings, earthquakes, and hurricanes. If the designers were sufficiently competent in the planning and realization of their award-winning WTC Towers as intended, they should have remained standing. Tragically, they did not. From this irreconcilable fact there can only be two conclusions; either the designers were inadequate in their designs, or there is an alternate explanation for their destruction on 9/11.
However, these are not all of the facts. After 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson has made statements which directly contradict previous comments by other building designers—including himself.
According to Paul Thomspon, it was reported on Sept 3-7, 2001 “the Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. [Leslie] Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. [Robertson] concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly.”[27]
Surprisingly, Robertson claimed that the WTC Towers were designed to survive plane crashes at speeds of 180 mph.[28] He also repeated this claim in an interview with Steven Jones in October 2006.[29] However, these statements are contradicted by Skilling, who indicated that “a previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.”[30] Robertson is also somewhat contradicted by his own statement in 1984-5 that there was “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”[31]
Immediately after 9/11 it was reported that “the engineer who said after the 1993 bombing that the towers could withstand a Boeing 707, Leslie Robertson, was not available for comment yesterday, a partner at his Manhattan firm said. ‘We're going to hold off on speaking to the media,’ said the partner, Rick Zottola, at Leslie E. Robertson Associates. ‘We'd like to reserve our first comments to our national security systems, F.B.I. and so on.’”[32]
Later, in 2002, Robertson said: “to the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”[33] In 2005, NIST also claimed that they had been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.”[34]
These statements ignore the fact that Skilling claimed in 1993 that “Our analysis [in 1964] 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… The building structure would still be there.”[35]
As well, Robertson said the following in an interview with Steven Jones in October 2006:
“I support the general conclusions of the NIST report… The [WTC] was designed for the impact of a low flying slow flying Boeing 707. We envisioned it [to be like] the aircraft that struck the Empire State building [during] WW II. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jets that actually hit it… Yes there was a red hot metal seen [in the WTC rubble] by engineers. Molten—Molten means flowing—I’ve never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal, or by the way if they had seen it, if they had performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was.”[36]
Three of these claims are demonstrably problematic. The claim about “slow flying” aircraft has already been discussed.[37] The statement about molten metal is also contradicted by many eyewitness statements.[38] In fact, it is possible that Robertson himself saw this molten steel, but this fact is not confirmed at the present time.[39]
Not only had many witnesses claimed to have seen this molten metal, FEMA had performed an analysis of it. Their observations were recorded in Appendix C of their WTC Building Performance Study.[40] Ironically, Robertson stated that he was not aware if anyone had performed an analysis on the molten steel in an interview with Jones—who had also performed an analysis of previously molten metal samples from Ground zero.[41] Jones’ findings appear to be corroborated by the FEMA report which described “a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused ‘intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.’”[42] The New York Times described this as “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”[43] NIST did not even mention the presence of molten steel and called it “irrelevant to the investigation.”[44] Amazingly, NIST’s 10 000 page, $20 million report couldn’t find the space to mention the earlier findings about the molten steel analyzed in the FEMA report. There have even been reports of evaporated steel.[45]
The presence of molten steel would be very surprising because jet fuel fires are incapable of melting steel.[46] In fact, NIST reported that the highest recorded temperatures of the jet fuel fires from the WTC were not even enough to weaken the steel.[47]
Conclusions
It is demonstrable that the WTC building designers claimed that the Twin Towers would survive an event similar to 9/11. Either the WTC building designers were tragically wrong in their calculations and designs, or there is another explanation for the destruction of the WTC Towers. After 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson has made claims that are contradicted by statements and documents from as many as 40 years ago. These contradictions must be resolved through the release of all of the pertinent WTC documents that have been withheld since 9/11.



[1] Research based on Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline and other sources. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson
[2] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, The Height of Ambition, New York Times, September 8, 2002.
[3] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, City in the Sky: The rise and fall of the World Trade Center, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, pages 134-136.
[4] Angus K. Gillespie, Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press 1999), 117
[5] Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, page 133.
[6] How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings, Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 48-49.
[7] Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, Page 227. See also Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline.
[8] Ibid. pages 131-132.
[9] Jim Hoffman, Towers' Design Parameters: Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html.
[10] World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, FEMA Report 403, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Washington, DC, 2002. Page 31.
[11] Hoffman, Towers' Design Parameters.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Eric Nalder, Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, Seattle Times, February 27, 1993.
[15] James Glanz, and Eric Lipton, Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says, Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times.
“Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.”
Norman Glover, Fire Engineering, Fire Engineering journal, October 2002.
“Almost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire…”
[16] Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline. February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It
[17] Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, pages 131-2.
[18] Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline. February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It
[19] Hearing before the Committee on Science, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Second Session, March 6, 2002, Serial No. 107–46.
[20] Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Independent Investigators Release Suppressed Blueprints of Destroyed World Trade Center Tower, March 27, 2007. http://www.stj911.org/.
[21] Christopher Bollyn, Some Survivors Say ‘Bombs Exploded Inside WTC’, American Free Press, October 22, 2001.
[22] Nalder, Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
[23] Towers Built to Withstand Jet Impact, The Chicago Tribune, September 12, 2001.
[24] Leslie E. Robertson, Reflections on the World Trade Center. National Academy of Engineering, Volume 32, Number 1 - Spring 2002.
[25] Prisonplanet.com, WTC Construction Manager: Towers Were Designed to Take Numerous Plane Crashes, http://www.prisonplanet.com/, November 14, 2004.
[26] “DeMartini will be in his office on the 88th floor of the north tower when it is hit on 9/11. He will die when the tower collapses, after helping more than 50 people escape.” [Associated Press, 8/29/2003; New York Times, 8/29/2003]
[27] Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, pages 138-9, 366.
[28] Nalder, Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
[28] Towers Built to Withstand Jet Impact. See also: Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001: WTC Structural Engineer Says Trade Center Designed for 707 Crashing Into It. These articles from the day after 9/11 make clear the fact that this statement was made before 9/11: “Les Robertson, the Trade Center's structural engineer, spoke last week at a conference on tall buildings in Frankfurt, Germany.”
[29] See a partial transcript of this interview included below.
[30] Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It
[31] Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, Page 227. See also Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline.
[32] James Glanz, Believed to Be Safe, the Towers Proved Vulnerable to Jet Fuel Fire, The New York Times, September 12, 2001
[33] Robertson, Reflections on the World Trade Center
[34] National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, page. 13
[35] Nalder, Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
[36] Steven Jones in discussion With Leslie Robertson, by KGNU Radio, Denver, CO, Oct 26, 2006. http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/StevenJones_LeslieRobertson_20061026.mp3. See also:
Gregg Roberts, Jones v. Robertson: A physicist and a structural engineer debate the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, http://journalof911studies.com/
[37] See another statement by Robertson here: “The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field).” Taken from: Robertson, Reflections on the World Trade Center
[38] ‘George Washington,’ Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11? December 06, 2005. http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/
[39] James M. Williams, SEAUNEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, Volume VI- Issue II October 2001
Someone, quite possibly Leslie Robertson “describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.” See also:
Gregg Roberts, Jones v. Robertson: A physicist and a structural engineer debate the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center
“It is possible that Robertson himself said this. James Williams, SEAUNEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001. This was one of points listed by SEAU president Williams, after stating that Robertson ‘was a guest of SEAU’ and presented to them ‘a number of interesting facts’ including ‘some you might not have heard.’ ‘As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.’ page 3, http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf. An email sent to the Seau.org contact email address to clarify this point went unanswered.”
[40] See here for pictures and comments in FEMA’s report mentioning the melted steel:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
“Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.”
“The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.”
[41] Paul Watson, Scientific Analysis Proves Towers Brought Down By Incendiaries, June 20, 2006. http://www.prisonplanet.com/ “using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples [of iron taken from Ground Zero]—we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese—these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate.” See also:
Griffin, The Destruction of the World Trade Center and Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?
[42] Joan Killough-Miller, The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel, WPI Transformations, Spring 2002.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Jim Hoffman, NIST's World Trade Center FAQ A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's ‘Answers to Frequently Asked Questions’. August 30, 2006.
[45] “Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’” from:
James Glanz, Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated, New York Times, November 29. 2001.
[46] “The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.” Taken from: Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?” Science, Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001).
[47] Kevin Ryan, A New Standard for Deception, June 4, 2006. See also: NIST and the World Trade Center.

Click to expand...

GrowRebel said:

It doesn't matter ... in your view that is ... whether I am correct or not ... what does matter is we the people who what the truth of what really happen that day continue pushing for a real investigation. Nothing else matters.


Source? Link? I didn't think so ...


Oh really? Well in that case you will have no problem providing a link to their "great detail" Right? I won't hold my breath though.


Been there done that ... if you don't want to take the time to look where I told you that's your problem.


Yes I did, but I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as the scientists and engineers that found evidence of the towers being demo.

Click to expand...

NoDrama said:

i found this post that really explains why jet fuel cannot be the cause of the steel failing.

"LRRP 1968 Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 5:56 am “the World Trade Center buildings collapsed as a result of fires ignited by jet fuel.”
The above is absolutely and physically impossible. Thermodynamics 101.
Weakened steel does not fail explosively. It gradually loses strength along it’s stress-strain curve and then only in the areas that attain the temperatures required to fail. Steel is an excellent heat conductor and will conduct heat away from the point of application. The materials “specific heat” will show you how much it has to absorb in order to get hot. This is measured in BTU’s / mass. You can have flames as hot as you like but if there is not enough heat energy available to heat up the material you will do nothing.

An example of this is your stove at home. A gas range burns propane at 3254 F. An aluminum pan melts at 1220 F. This should make it impossible to cook on a gas range, as the pan would melt or at least soften into putty, but it does not because heating materials is complex and actually pretty difficult. Heat goes away very fast and you have to continue to pour BTUs into it above the rate that it loses the heat. This is not easy.
I just made myself a omelet, the pan miraculously didn’t melt.
There was not enough heat value in the jet fuel to come anywhere close to making the steel hot enough to fail. You will run out fuel long before that happens and the math is straight forward.

You simply take the tons of steel in question, the amount of BTU’s it would take to make the steel hot, including the concrete and the air and you just can’t do it.
In fact it is so far from possible, the fires cannot be a factor, the temperature would not have even come close to the starting of the elastic region.
Anyone who repeats the “jet fuel burns at xxx and steel loses yy% of it strength at xxx temp” is an idiot or a liar or just cannot understand the physics involved here.
That this was an “official” explanation tells me that they are lying. When a suspect lies, ask any cop what that tells him.
– as an aside, jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees all right – IN A JET ENGINE. A jet engine forces air through a compressor to get enough volume and mass of O2 to support the combustion. You cannot get the fuel to burn at anywhere near that temp in open air, there is not enough mass air flow for an optimal stoichiometric ratio.
Even if you could, which you can’t kerosene only yields 18,500 Btu/lb in perfect conditions.
In open air you’d be lucky to get 20% of that efficiency, but even at 100% efficiency there aren’t enough BTU’s to heat up the steel past about 700 degrees.

If you use a full fuel loading with zero gallons burned in the fireball and zero gallons sent down the elevator shaft to blow up the lobby you still only have enough fuel to to get the steel up to 500 degrees or so. That’s with optimal heat transfer into the steel, best case conditions of delta-T and R values, with worst case delta-t for the heat LOSS from the steel. As material heat up they radiate and conduct heat AWAY at a rate governed by the temperature and ambient factors. So the hotter the steel gets the more heat it LOSES. This is why steel mills use crucibles to hold the steel as well as the heat.

The specific heat of steel is 240 btu/ton per degree > to raise the temp from ambient to 1800 degrees would require 432,000 btu/s ton at OPTIMAL efficiency. The concrete requires even more over 800,000 btu’s.
The the air also has to heat up, and air being a poor conductor and all the humidity in the air, the specific heat of water is 8 times higher than steel and 5 times high than concrete.
It’s a rather long equation but not really complex. Bottom line, not enough BTU to make the steel hot enough to fail. Can’t be done. Something else brought the buildings down. If they didn’t fall immediately after the impacts there is now way the fires could have triggered it as the tensile and compressive strength of the steel did not change at all ( reference the stress-strain diagram for structural steel) after the fires did their work. It never exceeded it’s maximum working stress, if it did, the top would have fallen over towards the point of maximum damage. It would have done this slowly as the stress progressed along to top of the curve to the point of maximum or ultimate strength. The metal would be very deformed at this point.
From the the origin to the point called proportional limit, the stress-strain curve is a straight line. This is called Hooke’s Law that within the proportional limit, the stress is directly proportional to strain up to the elastic limit. That is the limit beyond which the material will no longer go back to its original shape when the load is removed, or it is the maximum stress that may be developed such that there is no permanent or residual deformation when the load is entirely removed.
The structural damage by the impact either failed the structure right away or the it brought it past the elastic limit. If it reached a certain point – the curve here is actually longer that the portion from 0-the EL, the steel will start to deform plastically, that is bend like taffy. There was zero evidence of this.

The diagram for the temperatures tells us that the steel would have to attain a consistent temperature across the entire beam of way over 1500-1800 degrees, a point stress is not enough to induce failure, and there is no way to a localized temperature peak this high without the heat conducting to the rest of the beam. This is shown by the transfer equation is governed by the composition and shape of the beam, Shape is vital in that an I-beam or box had a high surface area to volume ratio, This means heat loss radiated away form the source of the heat is going to be very high, also humidity in the air will absorb the heat faster as water can take a lot of heat before raising it’s temperature so initial heat transfer AWAY form the steel will be even higher.
If as they will say that the fireproofing was all blown away by the impact makes it even harder, as the steel can radiate more heat if it is uncovered.
We can also calculate the rate of heat transfer INTO the steel beams. It is a function of the differential temperature, the specific heat of the steel, the surface area of the expose material and the R value of the air or any remaining building materials between the flame and the steel, as well as the airflow ( mass flow rate of hot air).
Al these factors except R can be definitively identified. using the maximum value for R, you’d run out of fuel ( assuming 100% fuel loading on the plane with zero for elevator shaft and fireball) before you got a 700 degree T-rise anywhere.
But the Kean Commission weenies also state that vast amounts of fuel poured down the elevator shafts to account for the damage to the ground floor. So where that that leave us?
You’d be lucky to be able to do a marshmallow roast with what was left after the fireball anyway.
It doesn’t work and there is no way to make it work. the official story is a sham and any one who believes it is an ignorant fool. "


What you think???? Don't you just love science?

Click to expand...

RickWhite said:

If you are going to keep chopping up every post into single sentences you might want to at least respond to them with something meaningful. None of your responses even make sense.

Click to expand...

RickWhite said:

You need a source to show that the WTC was constructed differently than most buildings, are you joking?

Click to expand...

RickWhite said:

This is common knowledge; even people on your side fully acknowledge this so why do you need a source? Here - 10 seconds on Google.

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

Click to expand...

RickWhite said:

Also, I did look for a response to the overpass issue. I looked on several pages and didn't find one.

Click to expand...

RickWhite said:

Bottom line, nothing in your post even comes close to a rebuttal of anything I said.

Click to expand...

RickWhite said:

What you posted is the equivalent of a child saying "nu uh, nu uh, nu uh" in response to everything. What is your argument because I'm not seeing more than "nu uh."

Click to expand...

No ... I'm posting facts ... you are in denial so you pretend I haven't address the issue.

GrowRebel said:

It does make sense. You merely make a statement it doesn't to side step the issue ... typical disinformationalist tactic.


No ... I want a source that shows the WTC towers were constructed differently than other steel frame fireproofed skyscrapers.


You provide a link to an OPINION and expect us to accept it as facts ... while you continue to disregard undeniable scientific facts, that NO posted twice ... and you think yourself credible?


Well the information is there ... if you are too lazy to look it up it's not my problem ... the folks that have been following this thread can verify.


merely your opinion ...nothing more. The fact remains people are going to continue to push for a real investigation. Too bad you can't accept that.


No ... I'm posting facts ... you are in denial so you pretend I haven't address the issue.

Click to expand...

GrowRebel said:

It does make sense. You merely make a statement it doesn't to side step the issue ... typical disinformationalist tactic.


No ... I want a source that shows the WTC towers were constructed differently than other steel frame fireproofed skyscrapers.


You provide a link to an OPINION and expect us to accept it as facts ... while you continue to disregard undeniable scientific facts, that NO posted twice ... and you think yourself credible?


Well the information is there ... if you are too lazy to look it up it's not my problem ... the folks that have been following this thread can verify.


merely your opinion ...nothing more. The fact remains people are going to continue to push for a real investigation. Too bad you can't accept that.


No ... I'm posting facts ... you are in denial so you pretend I haven't address the issue.

Click to expand...

RickWhite said:

You are too stupid for words. I posted a link to a real engineering journal. The link NoDrama posted was taken from a conspiracy website.

Are you really to stupid to know the difference?

To be honest, your responses are so childish and stupid I have to ask that you not address me anymore. I refuse to waste my time on you. Now if you will excuse me, me and the other "disinformationalists" have a meeting. We will be discussing how to spend the money we get from the Government for spreading disinformation.

What a dumb ass.

Click to expand...

doobnVA said:

I'm not in favor of more government control.

You must have me confused with someone else.

I do believe we were lied to (or at least "misled") as to who was behind the attacks on 9/11. I'm not convinced the government was behind it (though I wouldn't put it past George W.), but I don't think it was Al-Qaeda, either.

Click to expand...

hom36rown said:

And what leads you to believe it wasn't al quaeda, we identified the high-jackers and they even admitted to it.

Click to expand...

NoDrama said:

I always laugh when people say " Jet Fuel" As if saying it makes it a somehow volatile substance. Most people don't realize that Jet Fuel ( Or Jet-A) is actually in essence very dirty diesel fuel, it does not have a high octane rating , it has alot of waxes floating in it, sometimes they will add oxidizers to the fuel to increase high altittude operations. You could throw lit matches into a pool of jet fuel and most likely they would just extinguish themselves akin to throwing a match into a pool of water.The Octane rating of Jet fuel is somewhere in the area of 15 to 25. Gasoline(Mogas) is rated at 87-93 and Aviation fuel(aka AVGAS Which most people think is jet fuel) which can have an extremely volatile octane rating of 115-145.

Jet Fuel..not that big a deal.

Click to expand...

We Love 1 said:

Check out this video and tell me its not a big conspiracy.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+money+masters&emb=0&aq=f#

If that link doesnt work than just search for "the money masters" at googlevideo.com.

Jesus loves you.

Click to expand...

RickWhite said:

Well now this thread is complete. I knew someone would eventually boil it down to a Jewish world conspiracy. I just wonder what took so long.

You do realize that Jesus was born a Jew and died a Jew don't you?

Click to expand...

wyteboi said:

think about what you just said


they must have been just as "invincible" as their ID's ....


wb

Click to expand...

RickWhite said:

You are too stupid for words. I posted a link to a real engineering journal.

Click to expand...

RickWhite said:

The link NoDrama posted was taken from a conspiracy website.

Click to expand...

RickWhite said:

Are you really to stupid to know the difference?

Click to expand...

RickWhite said:

To be honest, your responses are so childish and stupid I have to ask that you not address me anymore.

Click to expand...

Bwaa ha ha ha ... now that is too funny!

RickWhite said:

I refuse to waste my time on you. Now if you will excuse me, me and the other "disinformationalists" have a meeting.

Click to expand...

Of that ... I have no doubt.

RickWhite said:

We will be discussing how to spend the money we get from the Government for spreading disinformation.
What a dumb ass.

Click to expand...

RickWhite said:

Jesus you are an irritating person.

Click to expand...

RickWhite said:

Do you know how childish your little game of responding to every sentence with a snide remark makes you look.

Click to expand...

RickWhite said:

Obviously not because you are a retard. I'm putting you on ignore now.

Click to expand...

I can easily say the same thing about you ... don't go away mad ... just go away. Ha ha ha. It must be frustrating for you disinformation agent when people insist on finding the truth with a real investigation. Too bad ... so sad. Here ... ... it will calm you down.