Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tree99

911 WTC Molten Metal

Recommended Posts

YT2095 passes insane alien a Hero Biscuit, there there, just ignore the nasty man :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay, now that i have calmed down slightly(not sure how i restrained my self so well on the last post.)

 

tree99 i don't claim to be a structural engineer but even ignoring thecomments on the engineering (both his and mine) the fact remains that he ignored possibilites and didn't cover the full range of variables. for a paper claiming to apply the scientific principle it breaks this regularly. now, if you'll kindly read my analysis and form a reply. preferably a bit more in depth than a snide 'very amusing'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well sure the collapse was a sequential event that occurred after the plane crash, but the buildings did not collapse directly because of the plane impacts.

 

They collapsed directly because of the inferno that resulted that weakened the steel structure.

 

And the point being just because someone designs something with a specific intent doesn't mean the desired result is the outcome. After all I don't recall any tests where the engineers crashed 707s into a test WTC to verify their design, do you?

 

 

I can't believe that the designers made a building that would survive a plane impact, but NOT the subsequent fire. Also, I thought it was well known that all the fuel was consumed in the fireball immediately after impact. It wouldn't have hung around burning like paraffin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jet fuel does not have the habit of lingering around that long, and would have burnt away within the first few minutes, leaving combustible office materials to provide the heat source.

 

The buildings were specifically designed not to act as a chimney (funnelling air up the stair wells & lift shafts). You will notice that the buildings have 2 distinct bands 1/3 and 2/3 up the building, this is where one set of elevator shafts ends and a new set begins.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

 

Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

 

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

 

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

 

[...]

 

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

 

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

 

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't believe that the designers made a building that would survive a plane impact, but NOT the subsequent fire. Also, I thought it was well known that all the fuel was consumed in the fireball immediately after impact. It wouldn't have hung around burning like paraffin.

 

Again.....

 

someone's design intentions are not always realized.

 

I am sure designers never intend for anything to cause the demise of their creation but nothing is infallable.

 

Further, like bascule's reference states steel loses 50% of its strength at only 1100 degrees, you see steel doesn't have to MELT before it loses strength, that is just a very silly notion.

 

And I am eager for anyone that doesn't believe the WTC fell due to the fires to explain how iron work was done during the iron age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'insane_alien' I can only hope that all people who try to debunk the mounting evidence provide a critique as in depth as yours, very amusing, thanks for that.

 

And to further your point about Dr Steven Jones not being a structural engineer, you may be interested to know that his work is being done in collaboration with the following engineers and architects:

 

http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php

 

This list is by no means complete.

 

But of course, you will no doubt be far better informed about the behaviour of structures then those provided in the following link.

 

OK, so your guy did some work with an architect. Can you debate or answer any of the many valid questions insane_alien brought up in post #39? Such as the insistence that the steel had to melt when much evidence has been cited that shows how much strength is loses just from being heated up. Can you address these questions, please? If you can't address these questions, can you drop your claim? (p.s. I'm not holding my breath for that last one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen, I've read some of the above posts with a great deal of interest. There is much discussion regarding the jet fuel 'melting' the structural steel in the World Trade Centre towers, resulting in their total collapse. However, will uncontrolled jet fuel fuel burning actually 'melt' steel? Can anyone please advise me whether or not, when they were last flying in a passenger aircraft, the jet fuel melted the steel in the engines please?

 

Not to mention, of course, that the steel in the lower half of the buildings couldn't have got that hot as fire-fighters and rescuers were working inside the towers, without incineration.

 

In addition, has anyone given any thought as to just how could two 110 story buildings (and one 47 story building which wasn't even hit by an aircraft), collapse into their own footprints at close to free-fall speeds, around 10 1/2 seconds for the two twin towers, 6 1/2 seconds for the WTC7. In order for this to happen, either the stories above the areas of the crashes must have had infinite mass, or else the steel structure below offered zero resistance (because of weakened steel??). Which is it to be??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a more thorough analysis of the molten steel found for 5-6 weeks after the collapse of WTC 1,2,&7, visit this website. http://stj911.org/

 

The popular myth that the planes were fully loaded with jet fuel is completely incorrect. It well known that passenger aircraft only carry the amount of fuel required for the journey they are undertaking, plus of course a sufficient amount of redundancy.WTC collapsed at freefall speed.See collpse here.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3629874799752266741&q=WTC+7+COLLAPSE&total=450&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6

 

 

Jet fuel alone can not explain the existence of the molten metal found under WTC 1,2&7. Plus the fact that WTC #7 WAS NOT INPACTED by any aircraft.

However it seems that someone had knowledge of an imminent collapse, as the BBC and CNN reported the collapse of WTC #7 20mins prior to the actual collapse. See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5661808404862296083&q=bbc+wtc7&total=350&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

 

We also have the problem of the speed of collapse. WTC 1&2 collapsed at virtually free fall speed. This means there was not any resistance of one Flore collapsing down upon the next. For this to ocker the fires must have uniformly heated the steel in the entire buildings. Thus making it also impossible for anyone to enter. However, tragically many rescue workers did.

 

As for explosions have a look at this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=703807108088105842&q=explosions+911&total=656&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-972875032828177268&q=explosions+911&total=656&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will ignore obvious logical flaws in the implications created by asserting explosives and not the airplanes caused the collapses and will only focus on the "science" this physicist used to prove that it couldn't have happend.

 

 

 

First, there was not a single mention anywhere within his very informal looking paper (considering the context and his supposed status) that metal and steel alike is weakened by increased temperature FAR before it begins to melt.

 

Anyone giving an honest, objective, and informed analysis of these events would realize that the strength of the steel infastructure would not remain unchanged until the exact moment it begun turning into a liquid and would therefore point this out in the paper.

 

In order for the building to collapse the steel did not have to melt, it only had to weaken enough that it could no longer support the massive buildings.

 

Second, any molten steel found onsite more than likely melted after the buildings collapsed. At that time the burning collapsed structure could act as a kiln and greatly increase the temperature of the inceneration.

 

Finally, probably not included in this paper, but in most 911 conspiracy papers the comparison between the Sears Tower being crashed into by a plane during the 50s is made. Hopefully, the difference between the velocities of a prop plane and a 747, fuel capacities, and general "potential" energy is easy to understand between these two very different incidents.

 

Anyone that assersts the energy from the jet fuel was insufficient to create the sustained temperatures necessary to melt the steel or cause it to collapse must be in denial of the iron age, but google could definitely help them out there.

 

you need to wake up.

if what you are saying was even remotely true then please explain building 7 which was not hit by a plane.

and the prior knowledge that mayor gueliano had plus construction workers and police.

you can't because THEY KNEW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can anyone please advise me whether or not, when they were last flying in a passenger aircraft, the jet fuel melted the steel in the engines please?

 

Do you know how a jet engine works? If not google jet engine, or more specifically jet engine combustor. The combustor is the section of the engine where the compressed air is mixed with the fuel and ignited. This chamber is constructed of ceramics because the temperatures reach in excess of 2700 degrees.

 

Not to mention, of course, that the steel in the lower half of the buildings couldn't have got that hot as fire-fighters and rescuers were working inside the towers, without incineration.

Again, I suppose it needs to be repeated as it isn't sinking in. The steel did not have to be a liquid for the building to collapse, only weakened.

 

In addition, has anyone given any thought as to just how could two 110 story buildings (and one 47 story building which wasn't even hit by an aircraft), collapse into their own footprints at close to free-fall speeds, around 10 1/2 seconds for the two twin towers, 6 1/2 seconds for the WTC7. In order for this to happen, either the stories above the areas of the crashes must have had infinite mass, or else the steel structure below offered zero resistance (because of weakened steel??). Which is it to be??

Like alien pointed out and you have ignored or skipped over, it is one thing to say the buildings fell at near free fall speed, it is quite another to have actual proof they did so. Watching a video and guessing where the ground is (hidden behind other buildings) is not scientific and not proof at all. As alien pointed out, the frame rate of the recording matters, the observation needs to have a clear view of the ground, and a timing procedure better than just watching the second ticker is needed. A far more appropriate method would be to count frames and know the frame rate while seeing the ground and not what was thought to be the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The popular myth that the planes were fully loaded with jet fuel is completely incorrect. It well known that passenger aircraft only carry the amount of fuel required for the journey they are undertaking, plus of course a sufficient amount of redundancy.

No one is saying they were full.....they did however have a lot more than the little bit needed to land.

 

WTC collapsed at freefall speed.See collpse here.

Please refer to either alien's extensive explanation of the free fall claims or mine right above this post. It is becoming a little annoying having to repeat the same thing because it is easier for conspirators to desmise or ignore things they can't counter.

 

 

Jet fuel alone can not explain the existence of the molten metal found under WTC 1,2&7. Plus the fact that WTC #7 WAS NOT INPACTED by any aircraft.

However it seems that someone had knowledge of an imminent collapse, as the BBC and CNN reported the collapse of WTC #7 20mins prior to the actual collapse.

And now you have left the realm of science and are entering the realm of pure speculation.

 

We also have the problem of the speed of collapse. WTC 1&2 collapsed at virtually free fall speed.

See above post.....again......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you need to wake up.

if what you are saying was even remotely true then please explain building 7 which was not hit by a plane.

and the prior knowledge that mayor gueliano had plus construction workers and police.

you can't because THEY KNEW.

 

Building 7 was hit by something bigger than a plane.....sections of the twin Towers when it collapsed....sections that were on fire.....

 

If a building is creaking, popping, on fire, and losing structural integridy it doesn't take nostradomus to know it is going to collapse too.

 

My eyes are wide open, are yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you theCPE, I'm very glad that you posed your question regarding proof of the collapse timings. I didn't time grainy videos, which is the popular accusation for just brushing off this type of question. You scientists have an instrument which measures earth tremors, it is called a seismometer. The nearby Columbia University seimometer recorded the tremors as the buildings collapsed, here are their findings:

 

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

 

Now as to the steel in the jet engines not melting, in the last passenger aircraft I flew in (last month) I detected no ceramics at the exhaust outlets, and these weren't melting. And what is the conductivity of ceramics?? I assume that this would have been somehow attached to the steel in the engines, steel which didn't melt or weaken very much (thankfully) in the plane I was in.

 

Now please also advise me just how hot it would get before a person would be unable to enter a building? Not very hot, red hot, warmish, just how hot? You see, you scientists are overlooking the fact that your arguments assume that all the steel throughout the whole building was raised to such a temperature as to weaken it sufficently for it to collapse at near free-fall speeds. And, of course, this just cannot be so, as people were working high up in those buildings. There are testimonies from some of the fire-fighters who survived, and we also have radio transmissions from those within the building prior to its collapse. Notwithstanding all your arguments, it must also be mentioned here that never before or since 9/11 have steel framed buildings ever collapsed and completely disintegrated as a result of fire, yet that day three seem to have done so.

 

So please do answer my questions, after all, you are the scientists. Which would you prefer, either the tops of the collapsing buildings having infinite mass, or the lower (and not very hot steel columns) having zero resistance, so resulting in pretty much free-fall building collapses. I cannot continue my understanding until I know which option to use.

 

Finally, and I know the difficulties some of you may be facing, you have probably never given these questions a thought before, just taking in all the media brainwashing which has been going on for many years now, just as I have until the realisation a few months ago. Visit the website at http://www.cornwall911truth.info if you do need to refer to some of the media film taken at the time, as you probably won't have seen it since the day of the atrocities, as the mainstream media chooses not to show it - I cannot think why!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, I suppose it needs to be repeated as it isn't sinking in. The steel did not have to be a liquid for the building to collapse, only weakened.

 

Yet we do see that steel was liquefied in all three buildings, so we have to explain how this occurred. No one is arguing that steel begins to lose strength one heated beyond a certain temperature, so I'm not sure what line of debate you are trying to advance by repeating it again. As I stated earlier, a debris pile whose (official account) fuel source is office combustibles starved of oxygen does not do a particular good job of replicating a 'blast furnace'.

 

Like alien pointed out and you have ignored or skipped over, it is one thing to say the buildings fell at near free fall speed, it is quite another to have actual proof they did so. Watching a video and guessing where the ground is (hidden behind other buildings) is not scientific and not proof at all. As alien pointed out, the frame rate of the recording matters, the observation needs to have a clear view of the ground, and a timing procedure better than just watching the second ticker is needed. A far more appropriate method would be to count frames and know the frame rate while seeing the ground and not what was thought to be the ground.

 

If you wish to argue that the buildings did not fall in the times given in this thread, then you will not only be arguing against those that do not believe the official account, but you will also be arguing against those that produced the official account, as they fully agree that the collapse times occurred in the times specified here. The collapse times are not in any contention, except for yourself and 'insane_alien'.

 

All I have is a couple of moments to pop my head back in again, so I will address 'insane_alien' a little later on when I have the time to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now as to the steel in the jet engines not melting, in the last passenger aircraft I flew in (last month) I detected no ceramics at the exhaust outlets, and these weren't melting. And what is the conductivity of ceramics?? I assume that this would have been somehow attached to the steel in the engines, steel which didn't melt or weaken very much (thankfully) in the plane I was in.

 

ahh you climbed in the engines did you? past the turbine or compressor(depending on point of entry) right into the combustion chamber eh? i always do that on my flights...

 

as for the steel in the engines not melting, well, the steel parts are located in places where the temperature never gets high enough for it to melt. the outlet is a high temperature steel-titanium alloy. basically, the steel in jet engines is NOT the type of steel used to make buildings. if you used structural steel in a jet engine, the engine wouldn't run for very long.

 

Now please also advise me just how hot it would get before a person would be unable to enter a building? Not very hot, red hot, warmish, just how hot?

 

without protection, 120*C would be unbearable with protection then you could probably tolerate up to around 250-300*C for a short period of time.

 

You see, you scientists are overlooking the fact that your arguments assume that all the steel throughout the whole building was raised to such a temperature as to weaken it sufficently for it to collapse at near free-fall speeds.

 

no we don't it only needed to weaken a few struts and it would pancake. buildings are mostly empty space and the shock of a hundered thousand tonnes of steel falling on top of it would void any structural integrity. this would result in a near(but still slower) freefall speed which is what was observed. the steel wouldn't even have to melt. just lose enough strength for 1 floor to collapse.

 

And, of course, this just cannot be so, as people were working high up in those buildings. There are testimonies from some of the fire-fighters who survived, and we also have radio transmissions from those within the building prior to its collapse. Notwithstanding all your arguments, it must also be mentioned here that never before or since 9/11 have steel framed buildings ever collapsed and completely disintegrated as a result of fire, yet that day three seem to have done so.

 

well, no other steel structures have went through such extreme circumstances as the 3 WTC buildings either.

 

and steel structures have collapsed or partially collapsed due to fires. there was a bridge that collapsed when a fuel truck crashed and burned on it. and there was a hotel in spain that lost some of its floors when it went on fire.

 

also, the twin towers had a pretty unique design. it cannot be compared with buildings of a more conventional construction and scale.

 

So please do answer my questions, after all, you are the scientists. Which would you prefer, either the tops of the collapsing buildings having infinite mass, or the lower (and not very hot steel columns) having zero resistance, so resulting in pretty much free-fall building collapses. I cannot continue my understanding until I know which option to use.

 

answered

 

Finally, and I know the difficulties some of you may be facing, you have probably never given these questions a thought before, just taking in all the media brainwashing which has been going on for many years now, just as I have until the realisation a few months ago. Visit the website at http://www.cornwall911truth.info if you do need to refer to some of the media film taken at the time, as you probably won't have seen it since the day of the atrocities, as the mainstream media chooses not to show it - I cannot think why!!

 

we have been asked all these questions before and then some more that you probably haven't heard your self. also conspiracy sites are not an unbiased and technically accurate resource. i'll trust my knowledge of chemistry and basic structural mechanics that i gained from studying the subjects through my course at university.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should take more care analyzing your own sources before using them.

 

According to your own linked reference, building 7 which supposedly also fell at free fall, which was a fraction of the height of the twin towers produced seismic activity for twice as long.

 

What does this mean....well the obvious, period of seismic activity recorded by the PAL site are not indicative of fall time for the collapsing buildings. The top of a building can start collapsing and have traveled a specific distance before enough mass and momentum has been built up by more collapsing building enough to be registered by the seismic instruments.

 

Otherwise by all means explain why a much shorter building produced such a longer period of seismic activity.

 

 

Now as to the steel in the jet engines not melting, in the last passenger aircraft I flew in (last month) I detected no ceramics at the exhaust outlets, and these weren't melting.

Again, google jet engines, you don't understand how they work.

 

The combustion chamber is made of ceramics because the temperatures there are extreme, however as the gas is exhausted the pressure decreases, and so what does temperature do????

 

And what is the conductivity of ceramics??

Ceramics are insulators.......that is why they are used in the combustor....google...it is your friend.

 

Finally, and I know the difficulties some of you may be facing, you have probably never given these questions a thought before, just taking in all the media brainwashing which has been going on for many years now, just as I have until the realisation a few months ago.

 

Any difficulties being faced in this thread are the difficulties faced by conspirators at understanding science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I stated earlier, a debris pile whose (official account) fuel source is office combustibles starved of oxygen does not do a particular good job of replicating a 'blast furnace'.

A pile of debris is air tight? Interesting.

 

 

 

If you wish to argue that the buildings did not fall in the times given in this thread, then you will not only be arguing against those that do not believe the official account, but you will also be arguing against those that produced the official account, as they fully agree that the collapse times occurred in the times specified here. The collapse times are not in any contention, except for yourself and 'insane_alien'.

Please provide the scientific and well documented 'official' claim you speak of, otherwise it is pure speculation on your part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now that's a fire!! But please do tell me, did the building collapse at near free-fall speeds?? From what I can tell it mainly stood afterward, but, hey, I'm not the scientist here!!

 

yes it mainly stood and no it didn't collapse at freefall speeds. but it was a completely different scenario. the buildings were constructed differently and different types of steel were used during construction. and the fire was of a whole different type (this didn't have a jet plane smack into it and rip the fireproofing off.)

 

all steel buildings have fire proofing. this is not designed to keep the building standing but to give it a set amount of time (usually in hours) for it to be extinguished and to evacuate. most fires will burn out or be extinguished within this time. in the WTC this was compromised by the ferocity of the kerosene fire and the massive impacts. thats why they fell so soon. since the main supporting structure was in the core of the building, not a usual configuration) the external structure plummeted as it was relatively weak. just like the body of a car cannot take the load.

 

as for WTC7 it sustained massive damage on a lower corner(it was completely gone for eight stories) and it was on fire. now, all it took was for some supports near that corner to weaken slightly the other supports away from the damage would have to take the load putting a lot of stress and strain on the structure. when the collapse started in the corner the rest of the structure just let go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thermate caused the molten metal. Here is a thorough lecture on this subject.http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904&q=dr+steven+jones+thermate&total=52&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh, thank you the theCPE, for trying to clear up some of my confusion in your article at http://www.heaththecpe.com/physics.php

 

You are clearly a very eminent physicist in the way that you state "Specifically, the repetitious suggestions from pseudo-scientists that are hardly respected in their field and are eager to put their name on any conspiracy theory in hopes of receiving some notoriety."

 

But I am still a little confused, so you being an eminent physicist, perhaps you can help me further. Your mind experiment in the final paragraph explains "If you aren't sure what to believe than do the following: find a piece of metal about a foot long that you can't bend. Find yourself a pair of insulated gloves, heat the metal in a fire and then wearing the gloves try to bend it again, you will feel like superman!".

 

OK so far, but exactly why then did none of the steel columns in the two 110 story Twin Towers (even though they were, as you suggest, bending because they had been weakened), not one column remained standing in the ruins after the collapse. Indeed, they were broken into small lengths. Now you may say that the weight of the falling parts of the building did this, so how come they offered zero resistance, which, I assume, is what you are maintaining. At least, surely you must accept that they cannot have offered any resistance as the concrete and steel was pulverised with the building collapsing at free-fall speeds.

 

And further confusion I have in my mind, I watched a Chinese man cook some food for me in a steel wok a few weeks ago. The fire underneath was fierce, very fierce, I wouldn't have liked to put my hand near the flame. But the wok wasn't at all troubled with the heat. Indeed, the way it clanged down on the cooker meant that, whilst it may have been "weakened" (I assume from what you tell me it would have been), it clearly had much strength left it it. The handle kept straight and attached to the bowl, that didn't warp, bend or melt, all seemed very good with it.

 

And one further puzzlement of mine, if firefighters and other rescuers were in the building, and it was Insane-Alien who kindly suggested that the highest temperatures to allow human beings in them must have been "without protection, 120*C would be unbearable with protection then you could probably tolerate up to around 250-300*C for a short period of time.", how weak would the steel have become in those relatively cool temperatures (and we are talking far far below those reached in kilns and so forth). In addition, those men were in the buildings for up to an hour, is this a "relatively short period of time". I hardly think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK so far, but exactly why then did none of the steel columns in the two 110 story Twin Towers (even though they were, as you suggest, bending because they had been weakened), not one column remained standing in the ruins after the collapse. Indeed, they were broken into small lengths. Now you may say that the weight of the falling parts of the building did this, so how come they offered zero resistance, which, I assume, is what you are maintaining. At least, surely you must accept that they cannot have offered any resistance as the concrete and steel was pulverised with the building collapsing at free-fall speeds.

 

but they did offer resistance. if the offered zero resistance then the towers would have collapsed at free fall acceleration. the towers accelerate slower than this. hence, there was resistance.

 

even ignoring that, having 500,000 tonnes of rubble land on something isn't going to leave it in pristine condition.

 

And further confusion I have in my mind, I watched a Chinese man cook some food for me in a steel wok a few weeks ago. The fire underneath was fierce, very fierce, I wouldn't have liked to put my hand near the flame. But the wok wasn't at all troubled with the heat. Indeed, the way it clanged down on the cooker meant that, whilst it may have been "weakened" (I assume from what you tell me it would have been), it clearly had much strength left it it. The handle kept straight and attached to the bowl, that didn't warp, bend or melt, all seemed very good with it.

 

this is invalid for 2 reasons.

1/ steel used for cooking utensils is not the same kind of steel used for construction

2/ the flame was not as hot as it got in the towers. if it was then the wok would be glowing red.

3/ the food in the wok would act as a heatsink

4/ if the hob provided the same flux of heat as the tower fire then your dinner would be charcoal

how weak would the steel have become in those relatively cool temperatures (and we are talking far far below those reached in kilns and so forth). In addition, those men were in the buildings for up to an hour, is this a "relatively short period of time". I hardly think so.

 

not very weak it wouldn't have dropped off significantly. the temperature of the fire was a lot hotter than that though.

 

also, the firefighters would not have actually been standing in the fire. they would have been a distance away where the temperatures are cooler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insane_Alien, I've never suggested that the men actually stood in the fire, but you and your colleagues assert that much of the heat was created by burning office furniture and equipment, aren't you? At least that was my understanding. And one would therefore surmise that it was the office and corridor areas where the firemen were, but they weren't scorched. Unless you are suggesting that the fires were only near the steel cores throughout the building and everywhere else was relatively cool for people to survive in. How interesting. Maybe you are also asserting that the heat which "weakened" all the steel in the buildings only came from the jet fuel, perhaps pouring down the steel columns?? :)

 

Please do tell us, we are looking to you eminent scientists to explain to us in clear language what many scientists (or "pseudo-scientists" as CPE likes to refer to them as) are failing to explain to us.

 

Oh, and by the way, here's a short 8 minute film which may be of interest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, i'm not suggesting that the corriders weren't scorched i'm saying that they would only have been able to get water to the edge of the fire not at the hottest bit where it was doing the most damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.