fire melts steel. 9/11 conspiracy theorists?

gue_barium · May 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · May 2007

onelongsong wrote:

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..

.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · May 2007

gue_barium wrote:

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...

sonicreducer · May 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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.

do you have a link for that?

sonicreducer · May 2007

onelongsong wrote:

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

RolandTD20Kdrummer · May 2007

sonicreducer wrote:

do you have a link for that?

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.

lucylespian · May 2007

sonicreducer wrote:

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · May 2007

lucylespian wrote:

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

69charger · May 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

69charger · May 2007

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · May 2007

69charger wrote:

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.

well you'd have to believe the NIST report collapse theory first to make your thermal kinetic meltdown theory work....otherwise it's broken and of no use in explaining anything. Didn't I actually clarify this to you a few times already?

69charger · May 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

well you'd have to believe the NIST report collapse theory first to make your thermal kinetic meltdown theory work....otherwise it's broken and of no use in explaining anything. Didn't I actually clarify this to you a few times already?

You deny that the buildings fell down?

I think we can agree that the buidlings fell down right?

Well since they did fall down then my question still stands...

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?

RolandTD20Kdrummer · May 2007

69charger wrote:

You deny that the buildings fell down?

I think we can agree that the buidlings fell down right?

Well since they did fall down then my question still stands...

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?

No...it's actually it's about how they fell down. In order for your thing to work NIST must be right or it's some kind of assisted collapse. But they say they have no idea how they fell. So where does that leave you?

you keep racing to your own conclusion without realizing how you got there....

69charger · May 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

No...it's actually it's about how they fell down. In order for your thing to work NIST must be right or it's some kind of assisted collapse. But they say they have no idea how they fell. So where does that leave you?

you keep racing to your own conclusion without realizing how you got there....

It doesn't matter what initiated the collapse. That's the part you don't understand I think. The fact is that the buildings did fall and that moving masses have kinetic energy, the energy of momentum. The same energy that a moving hammer transfers to a nail.

So I ask you for the ninth time...

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?

RolandTD20Kdrummer · May 2007

69charger wrote:

It doesn't matter what initiated the collapse. That's the part you don't understand I think. The fact is that the buildings did fall and that moving masses have kinetic energy, the energy of momentum. The same energy that a moving hammer transfers to a nail.

So I ask you for the ninth time...

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?

It's kind of implied your question still stands in your mind. It's probably just wasted space on the server at this point. If the building fell slowly then what?

What exactly is what you are getting at proving? Demolition would have the exact same effect. Actually a greater kinetic effect. What is it that you're still insisting on working out? First you have to believe it wasn't demolition and that NIST is accurate which they themselves admit to not being.

So for example if say 100% of the energy went into the structure as heat and melted the columns according to you...what answer have you provided to yourself or others in clarifying anything? Demolition would be the same kinetic scenario.

Are you just tying to tell everyone you know what kinetic energy is?

69charger · May 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It's kind of implied your question still stands in your mind. It's probably just wasted space on the server at this point. If the building fell slowly then what?

What exactly is what you are getting at proving? Demolition would have the exact same effect. Actually a greater kinetic effect. What is it that you're still insisting on working out? First you have to believe it wasn't demolition and that NIST is accurate which they themselves admit to not being.

So for example if say 100% of the energy went into the structure as heat and melted the columns according to you...what answer have you provided to yourself or others in clarifying anything? Demolition would be the same kinetic scenario.

Are you just tying to tell everyone you know what kinetic energy is?

You don't even remember the context of the original question do you?

I'm saying that the "pools of molten steel" that you are talking about have thier origins in the massive amount (on the order of a small nuclear device) of energy (a large portion of that being heat) transferred to the rubble pile by the falling buildings. Add to that 28 million tons of flammable material contained in the towers and you have more than enough available energy to cause large amounts of metal to melt and explains, quite well, your mysterious "pools of molten steel".

It means that thermate or thermite did not have to be involved to reach very high temperatures.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · May 2007

69charger wrote:

You don't even remember the context of the original question do you?

I'm saying that the "pools of molten steel" that you are talking about have thier origins in the massive amount (on the order of a small nuclear device) of energy (a large portion of that being heat) transferred to the rubble pile by the falling buildings. Add to that 28 million tons of flammable material contained in the towers and you have more than enough available energy to cause large amounts of metal to melt and explains, quite well, your mysterious "pools of molten steel".

It means that thermate or thermite did not have to be involved to reach very high temperatures.

I totally remember the context. I'm just saying, if valid, it proves nothing either way. So I'm not sure why it was worth repeating over and over... Is that part of the official story? If it was brought forth, and feasible, it would have evaluated and included. What is the source?

sonicreducer · May 2007

lucylespian wrote:

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.

you make good points, but im trying to get onelongsong to prove that he can make steel melt with jet fuel. that is his claim. i also wanted him to prove to me how the conditions he sets would have been those met in the towers.

neither i nor nist makes the claim that steel was melted. i have no solid proof. nist's theory doesn't revolve around molten steel anyhow. it revolves around weakened steel, just like what you are basically saying.

onelongsong · May 2007

sonicreducer wrote:

you make good points, but im trying to get onelongsong to prove that he can make steel melt with jet fuel. that is his claim. i also wanted him to prove to me how the conditions he sets would have been those met in the towers.

neither i nor nist makes the claim that steel was melted. i have no solid proof. nist's theory doesn't revolve around molten steel anyhow. it revolves around weakened steel, just like what you are basically saying.

briefly; you take a long pipe and drill a hole about 12 inches from the bottom. on the inside you put an elbow with a cap that has been drilled with small holes. on the outside you put a small shut-off and connect it to a hose attached to your supply of jet fuel. with the pipe upright; open the valve slightly until you have fuel in the pipe and light it. as the air heats it rises and draws more air from the bottom. as the flame gets hotter; open the fuel more and more. the hotter the air the faster it rises; thus draws more air in and can therefore burn more fuel. this is basically how a jet engine works. it will reach a point where the pipe will melt. you've essentially made a cutting torch using the design of a simple jet engine.
el kabong posted a youtube video showing melted steel. this is explained by it's location in respect to the column of air rushing up the center stairwell. as i stated earlier; the heat alone is enough to weaken the beams past it's shear point and rivits and bolts will also fail under heat. the building was wrapped in mesh and when the planes opened the top it created a chimney. the mesh; insulation; and fireproofing made an excellant chimney/blast furnace. all these factors had to be in place for this to happen.

MakingWaves · May 2007

dangerboy wrote:

never in history has fire melted steel, huh? 9/11 black helicopter tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists need to rethink that...and this was just one tanker of regular gasoline, not a huge airliner filled with jet fuel inpacting at 650 mph....

http://my.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20070429/46341840_3ca6_1552620070429-1236947502

A stretch of highway near the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge collapsed Sunday after a gasoline tanker crashed and burst into flames, leaving one of the nation's busiest spans in a state of near paralysis.

The tanker carrying 8,600 gallons of gasoline ignited around 3:45 a.m. after crashing into a pylon on the interchange, which connects westbound lanes of Interstate 80 to southbound I-880, on the edge of downtown Oakland about half a mile from the Bay Bridge's toll plaza

Witnesses reported flames rising up to 200 feet into the air. Heat exceeded 2,750 degrees and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound Interstate 580 above to buckle and bolts holding the structure together to melt, leading to the collapse, California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton said.

I was hoping someone would post this but i love how quickly the conspiracy theorists changed the subject. Freaking hilarious.

fire melts steel. 9/11 conspiracy theorists?

Comments

Categories