1656 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

coldboiled, on 19 January 2013 - 09:43 PM, said:

Perhaps the incompetence of a certain few who let this happen and should be. Prosecuted is all I'm saying

You can't argue with the facts. We have created the same level of heating reaction using fiberglass resin and MEKP.

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 January 2013 - 10:38 PM.

[joc]

skyeagle409, on 19 January 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

That is right. As it was, fires that resulted from the impacts were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. No explosive of any kind was used as many 911 conspiracist have claimed and I have consistently told them why. I might add that the aircraft were not flown into the WTC buildings under remote control.

Do you think it is possible that even without the fires, kinetic energy would have eventually caused a collapse as well?

[joc]

Quote

Quote

joc, on 18 January 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:
Oh, I certainly think they can.  Fires burning for a long time like that don't have a constant temperature...the more stuff catches fire the hotter the fire gets, the hotter the fire gets, the more stuff catches on fire, heats up the metal, heats up the metal...we are talking incredible temperatures which of course could melt steel...and please...bodies cremated...how about spontaneous combustion where all is left of the body is a small pile of ashes?

Babe Ruth, on 19 January 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

Are you pulling my leg, or do you really think that?

What is there not to believe?  You have heard of spontaneous combustion right?

[DONTEATUS]

Me thinks Baberuth need to do a Bill Nye the Science Guy experiment ! re-enact the compression of the WTC towers coming down upon oneself. I bet there will be no parts but little fiddley bits found of BR ?

Edited by DONTEATUS, 20 January 2013 - 03:10 AM.

[skyeagle409]

joc, on 20 January 2013 - 02:51 AM, said:

Do you think it is possible that even without the fires, kinetic energy would have eventually caused a collapse as well?

No, because the WTC buildings withstood the impacts, but damaged structural columns. When that happens, structural loads are redistributed to the remaining columns and that will place additional loads on the remaining columns in the absence of fire protection, which was dislodged by the impacts and that provided fires direct access to the remaining structural columns.

The temperatures did not reach the melting point of steel, but were high enough to weaken the remaining structural columns, which were supporting increased structural loads due to the loss of structural columns damaged by  the impacts. Before the WTC buildings collapsed, witnesses noticed the buildings were buckling moments before they collapsed, and that indicated the fires were having an effect on structural steel.

When  metal is heated, it expands and a case in point to observe is the airframe of the SR-71, which expands several inches during its flight, but the aircraft was designed that way and explains why the SR-71 leaks fuel when sitting on the ground, but the sealing begins when the aircraft reach airspeeds high enough to heat the skin to a temperature where it expands and seals the fuel leaks.

At the temperatures the steel columns were exposed because of loss of fire protection during the impacts and with the redistribution of added structural loads on the remaining columns, it was just a matter of time before the  fires within the WTC buildings weaken the steel structures to the point of failure, which was indicated by external buckling of the WTC buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 January 2013 - 03:43 AM.

[aztek]

wow, this is still going on?   otoh why not, we still debate who burned Rome, lol

I was there, I personally saw, second plane hit, personally saw, and heard first building collapse, I,m in construction, and high-rise buildings maintenance, for about 15 years. in NYC.  
you CT make me laugh, please, keep up the good work, thanks

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 19 January 2013 - 05:29 PM, said:

Not likely at all. After all, a half of ton of explosive planted in WTC1 in 1993 failed to destroy even one structural column, much less caused its collapse.

How was it "planted in WTC1", exactly? Do you mean explosives were "planted" inside a van, or that they "planted" the explosives-laden van in WTC1's basement parking lot?

It was RANDOM. It was in a basement parking lot, inside a van. It does not cause total collapse of the tower.

Same way as RANDOM fires and RANDOM damage do not cause total collapse of the towers .   

skyeagle409, on 19 January 2013 - 05:29 PM, said:

How are you going to get 100 workers to spend many months cutting structural columns and placing thousands and thousands of pounds of explosives more than 700 feet above street level and do so without anyone noticing? In fact, how would thousands and thousands of pounds of explosives not detonate after aircraft crashed into the area where  911 conspiracist claimed, explosives were planted? Reality is, there were no explosives involved in the collapse of the WTC buildings during the 911 attacks and no bomb explosions were seen, heard nor detected on seismic monitors. .

They needed access to the structural supports, and that requires access to the elevator shafts I guess it's just an amazing coincidence that they decided to 'renovate' the WTC elevators only a few months before 9/11!!  

And many witnesses heard explosions. How can you be unaware of the news reports/video clips where they SAY THIS?? I suppose you'll say they are all mistaken on what they 'really' heard, or some other nonsense excuse...

Edited by turbonium, 20 January 2013 - 08:40 AM.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 20 January 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

How was it "planted in WTC1", exactly? Do you mean explosives were "planted" inside a van, or that they "planted" the explosives-laden van in WTC1's basement parking lot?

Yes!

Quote

It was RANDOM. It was in a basement parking lot, inside a van. It does not cause total collapse of the tower.

And, there was no way that it would have caused a collapse. Even the steel columns remained standing despite sitting in the crater created by the huge bomb blast. Furthermore, I have posted photos of buildings in Iraq that took direct hits from multiple bomb and missile strikes and yet their structures remained standing.

Quote

Same way as RANDOM fires and RANDOM damage do not cause total collapse of the towers

Since some columns were damaged by the impacts, structural loads were redistributed. The remaining columns were exposed to the effects of high temperatures that resulted in failure of the steel columns, which was evident when witnesses reported that the WTC buildings were buckling just prior to their collapse; a clear indication that high temperature was expanding and weakening the steel structures.   

Quote

They needed access to the structural supports, and that requires access to the elevator shafts I guess it's just an amazing coincidence that they decided to 'renovate' the WTC elevators only a few months before 9/11!!

Even then, there was no way anyone could have prepared the WTC buildings for demolition and not attract a lot of attention. It took about half a year just to prepare a bridge for demolition at ground level.

Quote

And many witnesses heard explosions.

Just because they heard sounds like explosions doesn't mean they were. After all, no bomb explosions were seen nor heard on audio nor detected by seismic monitors, and to sum that up, there is no evidence that explosives were used despite what 911 conspiracist have claimed. In fact, they cannot even provide evidence of detonation wires and blasting caps within the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Quote

How can you be unaware of the news reports/video clips where they SAY THIS??

Just a matter of  doing my homework. I might add not just from the newspapers either, but from demolition experts in the area who reported seeing no explosions when the WTC buildings collapsed and other forms of information. You should also remember people saying that the explosions they heard, were nothing more than crashing elevators and nothing that can be attributed to bombs.

Quote

I suppose you'll say they are all mistaken on what they 'really' heard, or some other nonsense excuse...

Of course I will because of my experience on the battlefield, I know what bomb explosions look, sound, and feel like, and I saw no evidence of any such thing in the videos, which once again, brings us back to the fact that seismic detectors did not detect bomb explosions in the area and no evidence was found in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 January 2013 - 10:33 AM.

[Babe Ruth]

JOC

Yes, spontaneous combustion is an established fact.  However, I doubt there are any cases of spontaneous combustion of office furniture and wood trim and assorted fire-code-complying material can spontaneously combust reaching the temperatures required to keep steel in boiling condition, yet that is what we have at WTC.

But look at it this way JOC--all those folks in the Controlled Demolition business learned a valuable lesson that day.  They learned that it is no longer necessary to prepare a building for CD.  No longer necessary to perfectly place charges, wires, sequential charges, and all that stuff they used to have to do.

No, they learned that all they have to do is to pour some measure of jetfuel in a building, randomly, light it off, and in about an hour, VOILA!, the building will come down at near free fall speeds!  Pretty cool, eh?

[joc]

Babe Ruth, on 20 January 2013 - 02:17 PM, said:

JOC

Yes, spontaneous combustion is an established fact.  However, I doubt there are any cases of spontaneous combustion of office furniture and wood trim and assorted fire-code-complying material can spontaneously combust reaching the temperatures required to keep steel in boiling condition, yet that is what we have at WTC.

But look at it this way JOC--all those folks in the Controlled Demolition business learned a valuable lesson that day.  They learned that it is no longer necessary to prepare a building for CD.  No longer necessary to perfectly place charges, wires, sequential charges, and all that stuff they used to have to do.

No, they learned that all they have to do is to pour some measure of jetfuel in a building, randomly, light it off, and in about an hour, VOILA!, the building will come down at near free fall speeds!  Pretty cool, eh?

I really don't see what is so hard to get about the fires.  Spontaneous combustion comments were directed at the human bodies.
But as to your last sentence...if you look at real life controlled demolitions, they are exactly that...controlled.  If you had a company hired to wire the WTC building because the owner wanted it gone...the entire building collapse would have been controlled.  You would not have had the incredible damage to surrounding buildings...and if you did...guess what...that Demolition Company would have been sued for billions of dollars.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 20 January 2013 - 02:17 PM, said:

No, they learned that all they have to do is to pour some measure of jetfuel in a building, randomly, light it off, and in about an hour, VOILA!, the building will come down at near free fall speeds!  Pretty cool, eh?

Just like fire weakening the steel supports of a freeway, which collapsed.

Quote

Fire Collapses Oakland Freeway as Steel Supports Fail

At about 3:30 AM on Sunday, April 29, 2007, a tanker truck collided into the right side guard rail of a freeway ramp from Highway 80 east (Richmond, Berkeley) to Highway 880 gsouth (San José), rolled onto its right side and exploded into fire.

The metal supports below the upper ramp heated and expanded. The heating and expansion were far beyond design expectations.

What have I said about the expansion of metal exposed to high temperatures?

Quote

...The lengthwise roadbed supporting framework expanded between the massive spanwise beams at the ends of the section, at the concrete Ys. The constrained lengthwise expansion created very large stresses within the framework...and this framework bowed downward since its ends were pinned. Why not bow up? Because of the downward force of its weight, and that of the roadway it supported. A similar constrained thermal expansion occurred to the spanwise beams at the concrete Ys. They, too, bowed down. The entire section of ramp was curling up like a potato chip being fried.

http://www.counterpu...-supports-fail/

And once again, buckling was noticed in the WTC buildings before they collapsed.

Quote

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

Bearing walls and Open floor design

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors.

The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 January 2013 - 05:42 PM.

[DONTEATUS]

Some people just cannot understand what great weight above the impact area was there waiting for the weakened steel beams can do. Only very ignorant minds that like to believe in CT theories  which in there own description THEORY.
no proof exist not one thread of evidence . Look into the Facts,Look into whats is actually known about the mechanics of this event. Please do yourselfs a favor you will be better for it.

[Babe Ruth]

I don't see what's so hard to get about energy required to reach a specific temperature.  Burning fuel gives us energy, and getting steel out to boiling is some pretty high numbers, I'm thinking over 2000 degrees.  That cannot be done with office furniture and wood trim or anything else.  If that were the case, steel foundries would be burning office furniture and wood trim to power their huge ovens and devices to melt steel for a business.

Or maybe they could burn recycled paper cups too, eh?

[joc]

DONTEATUS, on 20 January 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

Some people just cannot understand what great weight above the impact area was there waiting for the weakened steel beams can do. Only very ignorant minds that like to believe in CT theories  which in there own description THEORY.
no proof exist not one thread of evidence . Look into the Facts,Look into whats is actually known about the mechanics of this event. Please do yourselfs a favor you will be better for it.

That is actually what this thread is about...looking into the facts.  I wanted everyone to watch a particular video that, for the . 'ignorant minds' seemed pretty compelling.

Babe Ruth, on 20 January 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

I don't see what's so hard to get about energy required to reach a specific temperature.  Burning fuel gives us energy, and getting steel out to boiling is some pretty high numbers, I'm thinking over 2000 degrees.  That cannot be done with office furniture and wood trim or anything else.  If that were the case, steel foundries would be burning office furniture and wood trim to power their huge ovens and devices to melt steel for a business.

Or maybe they could burn recycled paper cups too, eh?

That's what you think.  I think you are wrong.  You are forgetting a few other things at the bottom of that pile of rubble.  Miles of Natural Gas lines with gas still in them.  All of the toxic and flammable gases from burning substances.  The Chimney Effect which considerably increases the temperature of a fire.  Other metals with lesser melting points, melting and giving off flammable gases.
It is silly to thing an inferno like that at the bottom of the rubble pile would be the same temperature as a campfire.

Edited by joc, 20 January 2013 - 08:12 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 20 January 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

I don't see what's so hard to get about energy required to reach a specific temperature.  Burning fuel gives us energy, and getting steel out to boiling is some pretty high numbers, I'm thinking over 2000 degrees.

Steel begins to weaken at a temperature much less than 2000 degrees.

Quote

Temperature and Strength of Metals

Influence of temperature on the strength of metals


Some common types of steel lose 10% of their strength at 450 C (840 F), and 40% at 550 C (1022 F). At temperatures above 800 C ( 1475 F), it has lost 90% of its strength.

Other types of steel are made to stand higher temperatures before losing 10% of their strength, but they are much more expensive (and are weaker at room temperature).

And there are types which actually get stronger, up to 450 F (but then get a lot weaker at higher temperatures



http://www.engineeri...gth-d_1353.html

Quote

That cannot be done with office furniture and wood trim or anything else.  If that were the case, steel foundries would be burning office furniture and wood trim to power their huge ovens and devices to melt steel for a business.

Apparently, the temperatures within the WTC buildings were high enough to weaken steel.  What do you think was feeding the fire that collapsed the steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain?