we can ask why did building 7 fall and usually they get mad b/c they can't answer it b/c the nist still can't come up w/ a good enough story...the funnies was when 69 said it was a disproportionate collapse that fell straight down in uniform fashion! do things that fall disporportionately usually look symetrical?
easy question. take a sledge hammer and hit a concrete pole. the virbrations cause cracking. the energy absorbed into the wtc footprint caused a crumbling of the structure.
maybe you should talk to people that work in foundries. they melt steel every day. or maybe talk to welders. thier life is melting steel.
or maybe aliens turned invisible and melted the steel with thier ray-guns because the government ordered them to. that story holds as much weight as yours.
if you are so knowledgable in this field; why are you sitting on a message board? wouldn't you be out trying to prove what you say instead of blowing smoke up our as**s? historically; those conspiracy theorists that attack explainations; are not smart enough to understand the explainations. for example; the magic JFK bullet. 30 years later a recreation proves the original explaination by exactly recreating the path of that bullet.
Yes but have you? No welder on the face of the planet is going to tell you steel melts with unassisted open fire. You just contradicted yourself 100%.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
easy question. take a sledge hammer and hit a concrete pole. the virbrations cause cracking. the energy absorbed into the wtc footprint caused a crumbling of the structure.
:eek: ....just :eek:
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
1. This was an open air environment where flames were able to reach their absolute maximum temperature; white-hot and shooting upwards of 200 feet in the air.
bullshit. an open air fire burns cooler than the same fuel in a furnace situation. open air fires are subject to the cooling of the surrounding enviornment.
Those 200 foot flames were acting on a single support truss that was fastened to the two columns pictured here. That truss (and the connectors that fastened it to the columns) represents a small fraction of the steel that would have been found on a single floor of the towers or WTC 7. So again, far more heat focused on a single truss and no way to redistribute the load once that truss was weakened.
and considering the wtc was basically a furnace holding in heat; it's easy to see how the metal in the structure weakened. if the roadway was connected to the columns; it would have caused a domino effect.
4. You'll notice that the concrete roadway that "pancaked down" on the roadway below did not cause the lower freeway to collapse. Nor has the concrete disintegrated into a fine powder.
you'll also notice that the lower freeway wasn't weakened by heat. you may also notice that the weight was no where near the weight of a wtc floor.
5. You'll notice the columns were not torn down by the collapse, nor did they evaporate into thin air, rather they are still standing (having only lost the the truss and connectors that held the roadway to them.)
you'll notice that every freeway in the country has the roadway sitting on the columns; not connected to them. the roadway falls free of the columns.
maybe you should talk to people that work in foundries. they melt steel every day. or maybe talk to welders. thier life is melting steel.
or maybe aliens turned invisible and melted the steel with thier ray-guns because the government ordered them to. that story holds as much weight as yours.
if you are so knowledgable in this field; why are you sitting on a message board? wouldn't you be out trying to prove what you say instead of blowing smoke up our as**s? historically; those conspiracy theorists that attack explainations; are not smart enough to understand the explainations. for example; the magic JFK bullet. 30 years later a recreation proves the original explaination by exactly recreating the path of that bullet.
then by your own standards aren't you a loon, too? b/c the nist report states the fire was not hot enough to MELT the steel, only partially weaken it...so i guess you ahve some insider knowledge no one else, including the nist, has that the fires got hot hot enough to melt the steel?
their report clearly states of the beams they analuzed only a few of them got hot enough to partially weaken the steel.
easy question. take a sledge hammer and hit a concrete pole. the virbrations cause cracking. the energy absorbed into the wtc footprint caused a crumbling of the structure.
and when you hit a tree w/ an axe does it fall straight down or towards the side that is damaged?
so, what you're saying is one side, of 4, were damaged from debris and this damage caused the whole building to crack all the way around it, buckle in the middle and collapse straight down into itself? why did it happen so fast, shouldn't there have been more resistance as it feel?
why didn't any of the other buildings fall, other than building 7, from this?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
then by your own standards aren't you a loon, too? b/c the nist report states the fire was not hot enough to MELT the steel, only partially weaken it...so i guess you ahve some insider knowledge no one else, including the nist, has that the fires got hot hot enough to melt the steel?
their report clearly states of the beams they analuzed only a few of them got hot enough to partially weaken the steel.
the molten steel proves the fire did get hot enough. anyone that's worked with a blast furnace or jet engine knows this is possible.
and when you hit a tree w/ an axe does it fall straight down or towards the side that is damaged?
so, what you're saying is one side, of 4, were damaged from debris and this damage caused the whole building to crack all the way around it, buckle in the middle and collapse straight down into itself? why did it happen so fast, shouldn't there have been more resistance as it feel?
why didn't any of the other buildings fall, other than building 7, from this?
a tree is soft. it absorbs the energy. try comparing something similar. wtc 7 had over 100 hits with the "sledge hammer". one for ever floor that collapsed.
other building didn't fall because of the foundation footprint which allowed vibrations to travel within the footprint. why does one building fall in an earthquake while the building next to it is undamaged?
on the other hand; hold a propane torch to concrete. it pops and turns to powder.
a tree is soft. it absorbs the energy. try comparing something similar. wtc 7 had over 100 hits with the "sledge hammer". one for ever floor that collapsed.
other building didn't fall because of the foundation footprint which allowed vibrations to travel within the footprint. why does one building fall in an earthquake while the building next to it is undamaged?
on the other hand; hold a propane torch to concrete. it pops and turns to powder.
maybe you should work for the nist b/c they still can't explain why building 7 fell, in fact, i think the head guy said he had 'no idea' why it fell
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
and there's plenty of ppl that know the melting point for steel is far greater than the heat from jet fuel
and you need to prove to 69charger that it is, in fact, molten steel
it's not just jet fuel. it's jet fuel in a blast furnace situation; which will easily reach a tempertures to melt steel. heat also causes metal to expand. it doesn't take much either. i used to heat metal tubing and place a solid insert in each end; then finish machining the ends. the tubing was then covered in rubber and used in printing machines. the expanding beams would easily snap rivets; and push away from columns. since the building was wrapped in mesh; it held the building together long enough for the heat to cause the damage it did.
maybe you should work for the nist b/c they still can't explain why building 7 fell, in fact, i think the head guy said he had 'no idea' why it fell
and i think the head guy was a pencil pusher without any field experience. let him spend a day with a blacksmith or at a casting plant and see what he says. let him work with a wrecking ball and see that wrecking a building that shares a foundation with another will cause the second building to fall. these experts work only from books. this was not a text book situation. to date; not one person has claimed to be able to demolish those buildings with the same results. not one implosion expert has claimed an implosion was possible on a building of that size. especially without anyone noticing the cutting required nor the semis full of explosives being delivered to do the job.
in order to submitt a conspiracy theory; that theory must have some sort of logical grounds to prove the original decision was wrong. otherwise it's just people without sufficient knowledge giving opinions.
then just how does a mig or tig welder melt steel together without using any fire what so ever. go back to high school shop class.
Are you even serious? Honestly...you're joking right? There's no other logical explanation...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
in order to submitt a conspiracy theory; that theory must have some sort of logical grounds to prove the original decision was wrong. otherwise it's just people without sufficient knowledge giving opinions.
We have so that isn't the case.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
we can ask why did building 7 fall and usually they get mad b/c they can't answer it b/c the nist still can't come up w/ a good enough story...the funnies was when 69 said it was a disproportionate collapse that fell straight down in uniform fashion! do things that fall disporportionately usually look symetrical?
That guy got it right the first time.
I've explained things to you a million times and you refuse to listen. Disproportionate means that there was an initiating event the 'kink' below the penthouse and that the collapse progressed from there. It propogated very quickly and I realise you are still looking for cartoonish representations of the words people used that day.
I'll ask you...
Where do you think the billions of Joules worth of kinetic energy from two falling 110 story office buildings went to? It has to go somewhere. Where did it go?
and when you hit a tree w/ an axe does it fall straight down or towards the side that is damaged?
so, what you're saying is one side, of 4, were damaged from debris and this damage caused the whole building to crack all the way around it, buckle in the middle and collapse straight down into itself? why did it happen so fast, shouldn't there have been more resistance as it feel?
why didn't any of the other buildings fall, other than building 7, from this?
JENGA THEORY?!?! AGAIN!?!?! SERIOUSLY!?!?!?!
This is what I am talking about when I say you are looking for a cartoonish representation of reality.
The buildings were so massive that they had one way to go and that is nearly straight down. There is nothing to give them lateral movement.
So, like, really your whole argument can be shot down using simple physics.
Yeah, it's called resposible research. That's how real science works.
Whatever you say man... purple sky party time....good times eh?
light a few more candles around your NIST shrine... it must be a bit dark in there...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I've explained things to you a million times and you refuse to listen. Dispropartionate means that there was an initiating event the 'kink' below the penthouse and that the collapse progressed from there. It propogated very quickly and I realise you are still looking for cartoonish representations of the words people used that day.
I'll ask you...
Where do you think the billions of Joules worth of kinetic energy from two falling 110 story office buildings went to? It has to go somewhere. Where did it go?
Do you think this term 'Joules' is making you look more intelligent here? I've never seen you use it until recently and now it's in every reply. The word 'Joules' doesn't make your arguement for you. It's nothing more than a fancy word for an amount of energy. Yes, energy can equal heat but it doesn't mean that the amount of energy in the falling towers could cause enough heat to produce molten steel. That's just your theory.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I've seen some half baked assumptions and quizzical stabs in the dark before but this thread really has got some pretty good ones.
The more I look at and read the official NIST 9/11 report the more clearly I can see exactly what they've done to a lot of peoples minds.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Nobody on any side claims the heat was enough to melt the steel. You won't find anyone saying that. You're by yourself on that one.
Another interesting fact I don't think I've ever seen mentioned here is that the steel beams of the WTC were fireproofed when they were built with some sort of fireproofing compound. This bridge that went down wasn't. It's a very expensive procedure.
jet fuel may burn at 980 in an open air condition but i can make it burn a lot hotter. make it worth my time and i'll bet on it.
What I would consider worth your time is to (at the very least) email this newly heralded epiphany of yours to the 9/11 commission, and subsequently save us all millions of dollars of further research. No scientist agrees with your theory so I believe it is your civic duty..your "one calling" so to speak.... as no one else seems to be giving it any substantial consideration.
It would be like the one person that came from left field and single handedly clarified the entire 9/11 commission report. Without saying, it would make you rich and famous. You would get endless book deals, TV appearances etc...etc..
.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Another interesting fact I don't think I've ever seen mentioned here is that the steel beams of the WTC were fireproofed when they were built with some sort of fireproofing compound. This bridge that went down wasn't. It's a very expensive procedure.
Tests showed how hard it was to knock off all the fireproofing as well, but I suppose the planes were able to reproduce hitting all those nooks and crannies of all the beams from every angle like the 3rd party tests showed was required.
The sprinklers were upgraded and working to put out the fires as well, and people were still alive on the floors after the impact...one of them was recorded on the telephone looking at part of the plane protruding into her office....wasn't very hot according to her apparently.
But you know....somehow poof... it's all dust... and here we all are...wondering...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
jet fuel may burn at 980 in an open air condition but i can make it burn a lot hotter. make it worth my time and i'll bet on it.
okay, tell me what you plan to do to make it a lot hotter and also prove that within the world trade center the same thing would happen,...
that is all i am making comparison too.
btw, jet fuel,...
Flash point: 38 °C
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C
Freezing point: -47 °C (-40 °C for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures: 260-315 °C (500-599 °F)
Maximum burning temperature: 980 °C (1796 °F)
Density at 15 °C (60 °F): 0.775-0.840 kg/L
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
I heard her testimony in a documentary about how she was knocked out and woke up looking at the nose or some part the wing of the plane just outside her office door. She didn't burn to death. She was one of the following 16 survivors from the South Tower impact zone:
The second jet crashed at a sharp angle into the south tower hitting the 78th through 84th floors and leaving only Stairway A for escape. The 16 survivors who went down Stairway A include:
* Ten people who were in the north side of the crowded 78th floor elevator lobby, where people transferred from local to express elevators. Many people, perhaps 200, lost their lives when the explosion ripped through the lobby. The area was "packed worse than lunch or rush hour," said Judy Wein, a survivor whose arm was shattered.
* Two people at Fuji Bank on the 81st floor. The elevator machine room was between these survivors and the crash.
* Four people who were on the 84th floor. Three worked at Euro Brokers, based on the 84th floor, and another worked at Fiduciary Trust on the 97th floor.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
okay, tell me what you plan to do to make it a lot hotter and also prove that within the world trade center the same thing would happen,...
that is all i am making comparison too.
btw, jet fuel,...
Flash point: 38 °C
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C
Freezing point: -47 °C (-40 °C for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures: 260-315 °C (500-599 °F)
Maximum burning temperature: 980 °C (1796 °F)
Density at 15 °C (60 °F): 0.775-0.840 kg/L
I am guessing that teh max burn temp is achieved in an oxygen enriched environment.
I think people are missing the point that the bolts failed rather than melted.
In a structure like a bridge, the bolts are holding stuff together and are subject to shearing forces. The metal only needs to get softer for the shear forces to exceed their strength, then the structure will fail. The bolts do not need to melt to a liquid state for this to occur, they only need to get softer.
Similarly in teh WTC, teh steel does not need to melt for it to be weakened beyond a point where it will fail to endure teh stresses being placed on it.
I am guessing that teh max burn temp is achieved in an oxygen enriched environment.
I think people are missing the point that the bolts failed rather than melted.
In a structure like a bridge, the bolts are holding stuff together and are subject to shearing forces. The metal only needs to get softer for the shear forces to exceed their strength, then the structure will fail. The bolts do not need to melt to a liquid state for this to occur, they only need to get softer.
Similarly in teh WTC, teh steel does not need to melt for it to be weakened beyond a point where it will fail to endure teh stresses being placed on it.
Heat weakens metal for sure. In the WTC scenario (and building #7) what heat and from where caused the melting though? i.e. pools of molten metal "flowing like an underground volcano" as ground zero firemen put it.
Did you know police were ordered to arrest people that tried to take pictures of any of the wreckage? Anyone that talked to the press about anything was told they would be fired on the spot.
This type of order has to be given from higher up. I wonder why?
New infrastructure was built immediately to help speed up the recycling and essentially the destruction of evidence process.
All the cleanup trucks hauling debris were fitted with $1000 dollar GPS VLD's (vehicle location devices) so they could all be individually tracked where ever they were. Big eye in the sky... necessary?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Yes, energy can equal heat but it doesn't mean that the amount of energy in the falling towers could cause enough heat to produce molten steel. That's just your theory.
The forces involved mean that there was enough energy to create that kind of heat.
It's clear that you didn't read my posts in this thread either. Maybe that's why it is so hard to argue with you people when you never even read what the other side has written.
Where do you think the billions of Joules worth of kinetic energy from two falling 110 story office buildings went to? It has to go somewhere. Where did it go?
I've asked one of you close to seven times now and still no answer. This should be easy unless it doesn't 'jive' with your beliefs.
Comments
easy question. take a sledge hammer and hit a concrete pole. the virbrations cause cracking. the energy absorbed into the wtc footprint caused a crumbling of the structure.
Yes but have you? No welder on the face of the planet is going to tell you steel melts with unassisted open fire. You just contradicted yourself 100%.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
:eek: ....just :eek:
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
bullshit. an open air fire burns cooler than the same fuel in a furnace situation. open air fires are subject to the cooling of the surrounding enviornment.
2.
and considering the wtc was basically a furnace holding in heat; it's easy to see how the metal in the structure weakened. if the roadway was connected to the columns; it would have caused a domino effect.
why do you need molten steel? it only takes the heat to weaken the support to bring the structure down. confirming the original wtc report.
you'll also notice that the lower freeway wasn't weakened by heat. you may also notice that the weight was no where near the weight of a wtc floor.
you'll notice that every freeway in the country has the roadway sitting on the columns; not connected to them. the roadway falls free of the columns.
so to quickly recap; your theory doesn't hold water. you're comparing apples to oranges.
then by your own standards aren't you a loon, too? b/c the nist report states the fire was not hot enough to MELT the steel, only partially weaken it...so i guess you ahve some insider knowledge no one else, including the nist, has that the fires got hot hot enough to melt the steel?
their report clearly states of the beams they analuzed only a few of them got hot enough to partially weaken the steel.
and when you hit a tree w/ an axe does it fall straight down or towards the side that is damaged?
so, what you're saying is one side, of 4, were damaged from debris and this damage caused the whole building to crack all the way around it, buckle in the middle and collapse straight down into itself? why did it happen so fast, shouldn't there have been more resistance as it feel?
why didn't any of the other buildings fall, other than building 7, from this?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
then just how does a mig or tig welder melt steel together without using any fire what so ever. go back to high school shop class.
the molten steel proves the fire did get hot enough. anyone that's worked with a blast furnace or jet engine knows this is possible.
a tree is soft. it absorbs the energy. try comparing something similar. wtc 7 had over 100 hits with the "sledge hammer". one for ever floor that collapsed.
other building didn't fall because of the foundation footprint which allowed vibrations to travel within the footprint. why does one building fall in an earthquake while the building next to it is undamaged?
on the other hand; hold a propane torch to concrete. it pops and turns to powder.
and there's plenty of ppl that know the melting point for steel is far greater than the heat from jet fuel
and you need to prove to 69charger that it is, in fact, molten steel
maybe you should work for the nist b/c they still can't explain why building 7 fell, in fact, i think the head guy said he had 'no idea' why it fell
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
it's not just jet fuel. it's jet fuel in a blast furnace situation; which will easily reach a tempertures to melt steel. heat also causes metal to expand. it doesn't take much either. i used to heat metal tubing and place a solid insert in each end; then finish machining the ends. the tubing was then covered in rubber and used in printing machines. the expanding beams would easily snap rivets; and push away from columns. since the building was wrapped in mesh; it held the building together long enough for the heat to cause the damage it did.
and i think the head guy was a pencil pusher without any field experience. let him spend a day with a blacksmith or at a casting plant and see what he says. let him work with a wrecking ball and see that wrecking a building that shares a foundation with another will cause the second building to fall. these experts work only from books. this was not a text book situation. to date; not one person has claimed to be able to demolish those buildings with the same results. not one implosion expert has claimed an implosion was possible on a building of that size. especially without anyone noticing the cutting required nor the semis full of explosives being delivered to do the job.
in order to submitt a conspiracy theory; that theory must have some sort of logical grounds to prove the original decision was wrong. otherwise it's just people without sufficient knowledge giving opinions.
Are you even serious? Honestly...you're joking right? There's no other logical explanation...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
We have so that isn't the case.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
jet fuel has a maximum burning temp. of around 980 degrees celsius
steel melts at around 1500 degrees celsius
i don't know exactly what the WTC steel specs were, but it wasn't a super alloy they use on the shuttles,...
jet fuel has been investigated and proven not to melt steel,... i would trust NIST and other scientists, wouldn't you?
nist IS investigating the possibility of explosives,...
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf
~Ron Burgundy
That guy got it right the first time.
I've explained things to you a million times and you refuse to listen. Disproportionate means that there was an initiating event the 'kink' below the penthouse and that the collapse progressed from there. It propogated very quickly and I realise you are still looking for cartoonish representations of the words people used that day.
I'll ask you...
Where do you think the billions of Joules worth of kinetic energy from two falling 110 story office buildings went to? It has to go somewhere. Where did it go?
And that energy is converted to what?
Such as?
So, like, really your whole argument can be shot down using simple physics.
Yeah, it's called resposible research. That's how real science works.
JENGA THEORY?!?! AGAIN!?!?! SERIOUSLY!?!?!?!
This is what I am talking about when I say you are looking for a cartoonish representation of reality.
The buildings were so massive that they had one way to go and that is nearly straight down. There is nothing to give them lateral movement.
Gravity wins!
Whatever you say man... purple sky party time....good times eh?
light a few more candles around your NIST shrine... it must be a bit dark in there...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The 'super alloy' the use on the shuttles is plain old aircraft grade aluminum.
Do you think this term 'Joules' is making you look more intelligent here? I've never seen you use it until recently and now it's in every reply. The word 'Joules' doesn't make your arguement for you. It's nothing more than a fancy word for an amount of energy. Yes, energy can equal heat but it doesn't mean that the amount of energy in the falling towers could cause enough heat to produce molten steel. That's just your theory.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The more I look at and read the official NIST 9/11 report the more clearly I can see exactly what they've done to a lot of peoples minds.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
jet fuel may burn at 980 in an open air condition but i can make it burn a lot hotter. make it worth my time and i'll bet on it.
Another interesting fact I don't think I've ever seen mentioned here is that the steel beams of the WTC were fireproofed when they were built with some sort of fireproofing compound. This bridge that went down wasn't. It's a very expensive procedure.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
What I would consider worth your time is to (at the very least) email this newly heralded epiphany of yours to the 9/11 commission, and subsequently save us all millions of dollars of further research. No scientist agrees with your theory so I believe it is your civic duty..your "one calling" so to speak.... as no one else seems to be giving it any substantial consideration.
It would be like the one person that came from left field and single handedly clarified the entire 9/11 commission report. Without saying, it would make you rich and famous. You would get endless book deals, TV appearances etc...etc..
.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Tests showed how hard it was to knock off all the fireproofing as well, but I suppose the planes were able to reproduce hitting all those nooks and crannies of all the beams from every angle like the 3rd party tests showed was required.
The sprinklers were upgraded and working to put out the fires as well, and people were still alive on the floors after the impact...one of them was recorded on the telephone looking at part of the plane protruding into her office....wasn't very hot according to her apparently.
But you know....somehow poof... it's all dust... and here we all are...wondering...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
do you have a link for that?
~Ron Burgundy
okay, tell me what you plan to do to make it a lot hotter and also prove that within the world trade center the same thing would happen,...
that is all i am making comparison too.
btw, jet fuel,...
Flash point: 38 °C
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C
Freezing point: -47 °C (-40 °C for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures: 260-315 °C (500-599 °F)
Maximum burning temperature: 980 °C (1796 °F)
Density at 15 °C (60 °F): 0.775-0.840 kg/L
~Ron Burgundy
I heard her testimony in a documentary about how she was knocked out and woke up looking at the nose or some part the wing of the plane just outside her office door. She didn't burn to death. She was one of the following 16 survivors from the South Tower impact zone:
The second jet crashed at a sharp angle into the south tower hitting the 78th through 84th floors and leaving only Stairway A for escape. The 16 survivors who went down Stairway A include:
* Ten people who were in the north side of the crowded 78th floor elevator lobby, where people transferred from local to express elevators. Many people, perhaps 200, lost their lives when the explosion ripped through the lobby. The area was "packed worse than lunch or rush hour," said Judy Wein, a survivor whose arm was shattered.
* Two people at Fuji Bank on the 81st floor. The elevator machine room was between these survivors and the crash.
* Four people who were on the 84th floor. Three worked at Euro Brokers, based on the 84th floor, and another worked at Fiduciary Trust on the 97th floor.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I am guessing that teh max burn temp is achieved in an oxygen enriched environment.
I think people are missing the point that the bolts failed rather than melted.
In a structure like a bridge, the bolts are holding stuff together and are subject to shearing forces. The metal only needs to get softer for the shear forces to exceed their strength, then the structure will fail. The bolts do not need to melt to a liquid state for this to occur, they only need to get softer.
Similarly in teh WTC, teh steel does not need to melt for it to be weakened beyond a point where it will fail to endure teh stresses being placed on it.
Heat weakens metal for sure. In the WTC scenario (and building #7) what heat and from where caused the melting though? i.e. pools of molten metal "flowing like an underground volcano" as ground zero firemen put it.
Did you know police were ordered to arrest people that tried to take pictures of any of the wreckage? Anyone that talked to the press about anything was told they would be fired on the spot.
This type of order has to be given from higher up. I wonder why?
New infrastructure was built immediately to help speed up the recycling and essentially the destruction of evidence process.
All the cleanup trucks hauling debris were fitted with $1000 dollar GPS VLD's (vehicle location devices) so they could all be individually tracked where ever they were. Big eye in the sky... necessary?
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/security_gps.html
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The forces involved mean that there was enough energy to create that kind of heat.
It's clear that you didn't read my posts in this thread either. Maybe that's why it is so hard to argue with you people when you never even read what the other side has written.
I've asked one of you close to seven times now and still no answer. This should be easy unless it doesn't 'jive' with your beliefs.