1677 replies to this topic

[flyingswan]

Babe Ruth, on 17 March 2013 - 08:54 PM, said:

Yeah Swan, I forgot to include paper fires as a source of energy.  Like phone books and such.  Yeah, when you add in the paper, I think you're right--it was all the office furniture burning that kept structural steel molten for 6 weeks.

Yes, that's the ticket.

If you don't think the contents of a building can be a fire hazard, how exactly do you think that buildings ever burn down?

If the debris pile of a small hotel can burn for three days and that of an opera house for fifteen, what's to keep a large office building's debris burning much longer?

[Babe Ruth]

Recall that the fires were fairly well confined to the area of the airplane strike, NOT the bowels of the buildings.

Yet a month later intense heat and molten steel were still bubbling away in the bowels.

I understand how buildings "burn down".  In this case they did not "burn down".  The burning of office furniture and phone books and whatever else you want to throw into the equation CANNOT generate sufficient heat to keep steel molten for weeks, sorry.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 18 March 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

Recall that the fires were fairly well confined to the area of the airplane strike, NOT the bowels of the buildings.

And, the points of impact are where the collapse of the WTC buildings initiated.

Quote

Yet a month later intense heat and molten steel were still bubbling away in the bowels.

There was no molten steel and fires that smolder for weeks are nothing new. Observations of people who are not experienced in identifying molten metal cannot be used as undeniable evidence. After all, you  misidentified aluminum on the WTC buildings as stainless steel.

I guess you overlooked this message.

Quote

"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire."  

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 March 2013 - 05:34 PM.

[flyingswan]

Babe Ruth, on 18 March 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

Recall that the fires were fairly well confined to the area of the airplane strike, NOT the bowels of the buildings.

Yet a month later intense heat and molten steel were still bubbling away in the bowels.

I understand how buildings "burn down".  In this case they did not "burn down".  The burning of office furniture and phone books and whatever else you want to throw into the equation CANNOT generate sufficient heat to keep steel molten for weeks, sorry.

Are you claiming that if a building which contains a fire collapses, the fire miraculously goes out?  That none of the hot debris comes into contact with any thing from elsewhere in the building that can burn?

You seem completely ignorant of exactly how much material in a typical office will burn.  It's over 200 kg per occupant.  Now multiply that by the number of workers in the buildings and compare the total to the mass of the jet fuel.  You'll see that office contents is the much bigger energy source.

Incidentally, you're the one claiming molten steel, I'm only claiming molten aluminium, which is well within the temperature range of typical building fires.

[Babe Ruth]

No Swan, I'm not claiming what you said.

200kg per occupant seems rather an arbitrary number.  How was it determined?  Some buildings are heavily occupied, others not so much.

It seems that some report that the WTC towers were fairly LIGHTLY occupied.  I don't know, but you still cannot prove that office furniture and phone books kept iron molten for 6 weeks.

[kitty81]

joc, on 13 January 2013 - 07:38 PM, said:

Which in no way should imply that the only Qualified People on this subject are on the 'debunk' side.  There are some very real questions here...Just watch the North Tower collapse...and as your watching ask yourself...How did THAT happen? No debunking of anything...within your own heart and soul...how did that happen.  How does a building of that size come down so quickly in a pile of dust...leaving behind virtually nothing?  How are large concrete projectiles blown 600 feet away from a 'collapsing' building?  Is it really possible for two buildings to fall almost identically an hour apart?  And for WTC7 to fall 'the exact same way' when it wasn't even touched by any aircraft at all?  And...why didn't any other buildings then fall in the same manner?
These are real questions Socrates.  They demand real answers.  Do you have any?

Exactly.

''Read this passage from bladdy bla bla.... ''FRED 1 SANDRA 1240 All hell is about to break loose bla bla bla''

Bollox.

I'm with you Joc btw................... >'.'<

Edited by kitty81, 19 March 2013 - 08:37 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 19 March 2013 - 08:03 PM, said:

It seems that some report that the WTC towers were fairly LIGHTLY occupied.  I don't know, but you still cannot prove that office furniture and phone books kept iron molten for 6 weeks.

First of all, there is no evidence that molten steel existed at ground zero. Secondly, I have posted references where fires have smoldered for days and weeks, which is nothing new. Seems you've missed post # 1137 and #1140.

Thirdly, there was no means to generate molten steel at ground zero other than torches and wands, which were used by clean-up crews.

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 March 2013 - 09:47 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 19 March 2013 - 09:43 PM, said:

First of all, there is no evidence that molten steel existed at ground zero.

No evidence, except multiple eyewitness accounts...lol

skyeagle409, on 19 March 2013 - 09:43 PM, said:

Secondly, I have posted references where fires have smoldered for days and weeks, which is nothing new. Seems you've missed post # 1137 and #1140.

Was the fires at WTC smoldering? Or where they "Raging", "Infernos" or "like a volcano"??

skyeagle409, on 19 March 2013 - 09:43 PM, said:

Thirdly, there was no means to generate molten steel at ground zero other than torches and wands, which were used by clean-up crews.

You have absolutely no idea if there were means to generate molten steel, posting surface temperatures and estimates of people at GZ doesn't prove your case.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 19 March 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

No evidence, except multiple eyewitness accounts...

Accounts from untrained eyes and inexperienced people do not count. After all, Babe Ruth misidentified aluminum of the WTC facade as stainless steel during his visit in New York. I didn't need to be present to determine that he was incorrect.

Quote

Was the fires at WTC smoldering?

Yes, which was clearly evident.

Quote

Or where they "Raging", "Infernos" or "like a volcano"??

What do you think would happen as the rubble was opened to oxygen? What do you do after you put out a camp fire and why?

Quote

You have absolutely no idea if there were means to generate molten steel,...

There was no steel foundry at ground zero, however, aluminum will melt at the temperatures recorded at ground zero. How many tons of aluminum was used in the facade of the WTC buildings and in the construction of a typical B-767?

Quote

...posting surface temperatures and estimates of people at GZ doesn't prove your case.

Internal temperatures beneath the rubble was well below 2000 degrees which was evident as the workers raised glowing  "cherry hot" steel beams. Using the temperature chart provided, what is the temperature of "cherry red" steel beams?

A "cherry red" steel beam is by no means, in a molten state, however, the temperature of "cherry red" steel beam is above the melting point of aluminum but well below the melting point of steel, which explains why the "cherry red" steel beams were not in a molten state as they were pulled from the rubble. Aluminum in contact with "cherry red" steel beams will not remain in a solid state very long because the temperature of "cherry red" steel beams is above the melting point of aluminum, so what do you think will be dripping off those "cherry red" steel beams since the temperature is above the melting point of aluminum?

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 March 2013 - 12:08 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 19 March 2013 - 08:03 PM, said:

It seems that some report that the WTC towers were fairly LIGHTLY occupied.  I don't know, but you still cannot prove that office furniture and phone books kept iron molten for 6 weeks.

You might want to read the following information.

Quote

Recovery at Ground Zero

The operation became a search and recovery effort on October 9, after only six people had been pulled from the wreckage alive, all on the first day of rescue. The intense fires that bent structural steel were most likely fueled by paper and office furniture within the wreckage. Flames were finally out by December 20, 2001.

http://www.nysm.nyse...groundzero.html

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 19 March 2013 - 11:24 PM, said:

Accounts from untrained eyes and inexperienced people do not count.

Professors and Ironworkers are untrained eyes?  lol

skyeagle409, on 19 March 2013 - 11:24 PM, said:

After all, Babe Ruth misidentified aluminum of the WTC facade as stainless steel during his visit in New York. I didn't need to be present to determine that he was incorrect.

What a poor comparison! lol Based on that, that must mean that everything you say is true and everything everyone else says is incorrect?? lol

You need to be there if you think those at GZ are misidentifying steel regardless of whether you corrected Babe Ruth or not..lol

skyeagle409, on 19 March 2013 - 11:24 PM, said:

Yes, which was clearly evident.

They were not smouldering at all....lol

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Smoldering
Smouldering (or smoldering) is the slow, low-temperature, flameless form of combustion, sustained by the heat evolved when oxygen directly attacks the surface of a condensed-phase fuel.

Do any of these sound like a low temperature flameless form of combustion??

Quote

September 16–Thermal imagery measures the progression of underground heat on about a weekly basis. These images are produced in 8-bit grayscale, with brightness levels of 0-255, 0 being the hottest and expressed as pure white. This is known as emissive data, or heat being given off from the structure from underlying hot debris or molten steel. Smoldering is yet undetectable, because potential fires appear cold until they are exposed to air. The first thermal images produced began on September 16, and are repeated on two day intervals. - Maddalena Romano, “Mapping Ground Zero,” GeoNews, Hunter College Dept. of Geography, Vol. 15, no. 1, October 2001

“Metal of Honor: The Ironworkers of 9/11″ was a 2006 Spike TV program (by Rachel Maguire, aired Sept. 5) that featured numerous fascinating comments on the extreme heat of underground fires, which were finally extinguished mid-December, according to Spike. One comment from ironworker Larry Keating is repeated in a review by Linda Stasi: “The film shows how they crawled down through and up 100 feet of hot steel, even though sometimes it could explode when the buried ends were exposed to the air.” (See http://www.najaprodu...ges/pdf/NYP.pdf )

Keating says: “The grapplers were pulling stuff out, big sections of iron that were literally on fire on the other end. They would hit the air and burst into flames– which was pretty spooky to see.” (Watch at http://www.youtube.c...zSCt_cg#t=2m20s )

The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug up. - Richard Riggs, Debris Removal Specialist in “World Trade Center: Rise and Fall of an American Icon,” THC, 2002.

It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.

A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods [to] Mt. St. Helens, Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. ‘Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel,the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s [sic] and the thousands who fled that disaster,’ he said.

“As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” (James Williams, “SEAUNEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah,” October 2001

New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said “They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days.” – http://nymag.com/news/features/28517

Another danger involved the high temperature of twisted steel pulled from the rubble. Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees. As the huge cranes pulled steel beams from the pile, safety experts worried about the effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the hot steel. And they were concerned that applying water to cool the steel could cause a steam explosion that would propel nearby objects with deadly force. Special expertise was needed. OSHA called in structural engineers from its national office to assess the situation. They recommended a special handling procedure, including the use of specialized rigging and instruments to reduce the hazards.
- http://www.osha.gov/...s_worksite.html

The ‘hot spots,’ where intensely burning debris generated temperatures in excess of 1300 degrees Fahrenheit, posed a significant danger to relief workers. NASA had an instrument that could provide information that would be useful to emergency responders. NASA’s Airborne Visible infrared Imaging Spectrometer (http://0x1a.com/#AVIRIS]AVIRIS) science instrument was capable of providing data that could be used to filter smoke and locate extreme hot spots.
- http://amelia.db.era..._2004065539.pdf

“Two weeks after the attack, the rubble, the Pile, is still 7 stories tall. Below, in the Pit it burns like the gates of hell. It is 1200 degrees, so hot that the steel work lifted by the grapplers comes out soft. I’ve never seen anything like this.” – http://www.ukfssart....ground zero.htm

I suppose smouldering in your world actually means high temperatures and flame combustions?? lol

I'm afraid your loose use of the term smouldering cannot be used to describe the fires at GZ according to those who were actually there. Unless this is another one of those Skyeagles expertise beats all other eyewitness accounts and those at GZ are clueless...lol

skyeagle409, on 19 March 2013 - 11:24 PM, said:

What do you think would happen as the rubble was opened to oxygen?

There was probably a temperature increase, so those 2000F temps you keep going on about probably got a lot hotter. lol

skyeagle409, on 19 March 2013 - 11:24 PM, said:

What do you do after you put out a camp fire and why?

I usually cover it in rubble and leave it for a few weeks and come back to it, knowing that the temperatures is still hot enough to melt aluminium. lol

skyeagle409, on 19 March 2013 - 11:24 PM, said:

There was no steel foundry at ground zero, however, aluminum will melt at the temperatures recorded at ground zero. How many tons of aluminum was used in the facade of the WTC buildings and in the construction of a typical B-767?

Whoever said there was a steel foundry at GZ?? lol

What I think you'll find is that you are cracking up again and are creating arguments that no one said? What I thinj you have done is confused yourself, I think that some of those at GZ describe it was like a foundry, like lava, like a volcano, but none of them actually suggest there was a foundry or a volcano at GZ, they describe that is what the fires were like and unfortunately, being a keyboard warrior doesn't debunk those at GZ.

skyeagle409, on 19 March 2013 - 11:24 PM, said:

Internal temperatures beneath the rubble was well below 2000 degrees which was evident as the workers raised glowing  "cherry hot" steel beams. Using the temperature chart provided, what is the temperature of "cherry red" steel beams?

After 6 weeks for firefighters throwing water one the pile to cool it down. So I'm sure they were also dripping with molten steel in the weeks before as describe by many eyewitnesses...lol

skyeagle409, on 19 March 2013 - 11:24 PM, said:

A "cherry red" steel beam is by no means, in a molten state, however, the temperature of "cherry red" steel beam is above the melting point of aluminum but well below the melting point of steel, which explains why the "cherry red" steel beams were not in a molten state as they were pulled from the rubble. Aluminum in contact with "cherry red" steel beams will not remain in a solid state very long because the temperature of "cherry red" steel beams is above the melting point of aluminum, so what do you think will be dripping off those "cherry red" steel beams since the temperature is above the melting point of aluminum?

No one describes the molten metal as aluminium, you know why, cause molten aluminium is easy to spot because of it's low emissivity and high reflectivity. There is not a single quote from anyone supporting the idea that this molten metal was aluminium and not everyone can be mistaken especially when you we have engineers, fire fighters and even iron workers as well as tons of other people who describe it as steel.

Seeing as there was much more steel in the towers than aluminium, evidence suggests that it was steel as they described and not aluminium as described by an internet warrior who thinks the evidence he posts supports his claim and that he knows better than those at GZ. lol

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 19 March 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

You might want to read the following information.

I love how you debunkers think that the office fires were capable of bending (not melting of course...lol) steel.

It used to be said that for a hydrocarbon fire to be burning efficiently at higher temperatures, it needs oxygen. Yet within the rubble at GZ, where there is a severe lack of oxygen due to piles of rubble on top of each other, the fires burned very efficiently at higher temperatures, even though any fires would be consuming what little oxygen was available, yet they still managed to burn effectively at higher temperatures, close to the maximum temperature of the most efficient hydrocarbon fires which requires a lot of oxygen.

Don't worry Skyeagle, I do not expect you to address such silly contradictions. lol

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 20 March 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

Professors and Ironworkers are untrained eyes?

Yes! Even the colleagues of Steven Jones at BYU have disagreed with his assessment and in fact, they have distanced themselves from Steven Jones, and I might add that Steven Jones got caught trying to trick people with doctored photos. In other words, he is not credible and yet, 911 conspiracist have been using him as if he is a reliable source. The claims of Steven Jones claims have been successfully debunked.

Quote

What a poor comparison!

Goes to show that you do not have the knowledge nor expertise to understand the content of my message.

Quote

You need to be there if you think those at GZ are misidentifying steel regardless of whether you corrected Babe Ruth or not..lol

I don't need to be there by any means because investigators and demolition experts at ground zero found no evidence of molten steel. In regards to Babe Ruth, it proves my point that if you do not have the knowledge to identify metal, then you are prone to misidentify metals, and once again, where he misidentified aluminum as stainless steel.
They were not smouldering at all....lol

In regards to smoldering at ground zero, I guess you missed it before.

Quote

Recovery at Ground Zero

Within hours of the destruction of the World Trade Center, ironworkers, contractors, engineers and rescue workers rushed to assist the firefighters and police. While the size of the pile seemed insurmountable, rescue workers were anxious to recover any survivors trapped within the smoldering wreckage.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 March 2013 - 01:29 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 20 March 2013 - 01:13 AM, said:

I love how you debunkers think that the office fires were capable of bending (not melting of course...lol) steel.

Well, take a look at what fire had done to the steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain to where only the concrete core was left standing. That crumpled mess you see in the photo is what was left of the steel structure.What is left is concrete.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 March 2013 - 01:32 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 20 March 2013 - 01:13 AM, said:

I love how you debunkers think that the office fires were capable of bending (not melting of course...lol) steel.

You don't know much about steel and fires. Check it out because office fires burn at temperatures high enough to weaken steel and melt aluminum. What you didn't know about steel.

Quote

Why British Rails Buckle in Heat

Steel expands in heat. A length of 10 metres at 15C would be almost 2 millimetres longer at 30C. Which is why a long stretch of continuous welded railway track exposed to yesterday's heat could expand, buckle and bulge along its length by a metre or more - a buckle big enough to be spotted in plenty of time by a train driver even at 60 mph.

http://www.guardian....ransportintheuk


Midwest roads and rails buckle under intense heat

OMAHA -- The intense heat wave enveloping much of the country is causing metal railroad rails and asphalt roads in some Midwestern states to expand and buckle, forcing transportation officials to scramble to make repairs and causing rail operators to pay extra-close attention to the safety of their tracks.

Omaha-based Union Pacific Railroad said Wednesday that the heat has affected the operations of its entire northern division and that it is having workers inspect its tracks up to twice a day. "In extreme heat, you get a phenomenon called a 'track buckle' or 'sun kink,'" Union Pacific spokesman Mark Davis said. "When you get extreme heat and the metal rail wants to expand, it looks for a weak spot in the track structure itself to do that.

http://journalstar.c...8a84962414.html

Now, read the following and understand why the buckling of the WTC buildings was the result of fires raging with those buildings.

Quote

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

June 18 (Bloomberg) -- Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall.

http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

http://www.represent...Explosives.html


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

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


WORLD TRADE CENTER - SOME ENGINEERING ASPECTS

Why Did It Collapse?

It appears likely that the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.

However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.

http://sydney.edu.au...civil/wtc.shtml


Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire

Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories.
Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims.

But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center - and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim.

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2O3RfXfky

Why the World Trade Center Towers Fell on September 11

Engineers Explain the Twin Tower Collapse

Heat from the Fires
The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense.

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. This is not hot enough to melt structural steel. However, engineers say that for the World Trade Center towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength. Steel will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel will also become distorted when heat is not a uniform temperature.

http://architecture....intowerfall.htm

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 March 2013 - 05:35 AM.