View Single Post
Aug18-05, 09:18 PM
P: 68
How fast was it suppost to fall? Do the math. Things accelerate in Earth's gravity at 9.8 m/s^2. Are you saying that the government was also involved in changing the Earth's gravity so the towers would fall faster?
If the buildings did not fall one or two hours after the crashes, they should not have fallen due to the impact. What he is saying is that the government used explosives so the buildings collapsed with very little resistance other than air resistance.

WRONG. Steel (like the steel in the WTC) loses 90% of it's strength at 1000F. 1000F isn't very hot for fire, especially fire from jet fuel. Think I can get my fireplace hotter than that.
And weakened steel caused the first two wtc's to collapse nearly at freefall rate?

Perhaps the one fireman who saw these two pockets of fire wasn't actually at the area where there was a burning airliner present? I'm sorry, I fail to see how an airliner slamming into a building at (what, 300kts? 400kts?) only produces two isolated pockets of fire. Just because the chap saw these fires does not mean that they were the only fires present in the entire building.
The airplanes blew up really fast consuming most of the fuel. After 10 or 15 seconds at most the fireballs get much smaller.

Can I please have links to the source you've got which tells you that temperatures of 825 Celsius will not affect the yield, or ultimate tensile strengths of whatever kind of steel you think these buildings were made out of?
Tell me, please, how fire disintegrates steel.

Urrm, what?! Assuming this were true, are you naive enough to think that this would still just cause two, isolated fires?
Picture evidence shows the fires were really weak, people were standing where the planes made holes.

Let's assume you still buy the fire explanation, well look at the Windsor building in Madrid Spain.

Monday, 14 February, 2005: Hotel Windsor Fire In Madrid Burns far more fiercely far longer (24 hours) than building 7 or the Towers and does Not Collapse.

Chalk and cheese mate, chalk and cheese.
So the Windsor hotel in Madrid burned entirely and at a much higher temperature than the WTC one and two yet didn't fall and that means nothing to you? It's tempting to make a comment on America's structural engineers if Spain's are so superior.

I rarely pay attention to press reports. I do, however, know two things. The first is that the press will dumb things down so that they sound more exciting, and so that the average Joe will understand them. After all, reports on the yield stress response to temperature of mild steel does not make for front-page reading. The second thing is a big surprise: Steel weakens with temperature! You have proved absolutely nothing, except for your lack of knowledge about the effects of elevated temperatures on structural materials.
Fire still does not turn steel to dust.

I've re-read it. I don't see how saying "controlled demolitions look like this. The WTC collapse looks like this. Therefore, the WTC was a controlled demolition" shows anything other than a complete lack of understanding of logic, without even looking at anything in an engineering context. Sorry if you thought I was making a personal remark though, no offence intended.
Hey, all you have to do is prove fire makes buildings collapse at near freefall levels.

I'll accept that controlled demolitions do look similar to the WTC collapse. However, how many buildings have you seen collapse through other means? The weeks of preparation are generally to ensure that the buildings don't collapse on anything else, since that would be a disaster. That doesn't mean it takes weeks to make a building collapse straight down.
the buildings caved in. if it's not demolition then it's intelligent, steel pillar seeking and detonating fire.

Again, under what circumstances have you seen concrete, plasterboard, insulation, plaster, brickwork, whatever being dropped from several hundred feet onto the floor? Why are people surprised that the debris is dust? And no, the fire would not melt most of the steel; it would have failed long before that.
I will drop some conrete and if it turns to dust... mwahaha you are so silly.

Actually, if I, and others prove that your data is wrong, that means you are wrong because you are now using illogical information.

Ok Sub_Zero. There's alot here that I don't have time to go through at the moment but I'll be back later. So in response to your claims about the demolition of the building...

I think Brewnog toughed on this but tell me: what other way is the building supposed to collapse. Explain to me where is states in teh laws of physics that a building in such a situation would come down in any other fashion. You mentioned at one point that planes crashing into the building would lend it a sideways momentum that would bring it down horizontally? First off the buildings didn't go down as they were hit by the planes so the momentum of the planes had already been absorbed and disapated long before the building even came down. Secondly perhaps you might want to do a bit of math considering the weight and force applied by the plane hitting the side of the building and the amount of weight that would need to be moved in order to make the building topple horizontally. With out even doing the math I could already tell you it's not going to happen. This just goes to show even more so that there is little other way the building could have collapsed. Try figuring out the amount of force needed to make that much weight and inertia topple in any other fashion for any reason what so ever.
He did not say the buildings should have toppled horizontally. OK?