 Quote by Sub-Zer0
Ok, I didn't say it was impossible for fire to bring down a building, however steel does not melt until it reaches 3000 degress of temperature, Steel does not weaken or beomce able till be molded until 2000 degrees.
|
This just isn't true. I'll let it slide for now.
|
How can an hellfire inferno which the governments story depends on existing to legitmize their claims, how can a hellfire such as that be described as "two isolated pockets of fire."
|
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 answer is, it can't be, this fireman is telling his team that these fires are almost out, and he's calling for more firemen to be brought up the stairs to put out the "two isolated pockets of fire", interestingly he's not concerend with the strucutral integrity of this building at all.
The maximum tempeture a hydrocarbon fire can reach is 825 deg C (1,520 deg F), which is not enough to make the steel forgible or bend, and the fire fighters inside the building already have indicicated that the fires were quite sporadic, and not spread through the entire building.
|
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?
This link is for blade steel, and is completely unrelated.
This is a link describing how an Oxy-acetylane torch works. Completely unrelated.
This is another "no building has collapsed from fire, therefore the WTC was blown up" conspiracy site.
|
Not only that but the Jet Fuel would have all burnt up in any time span anywhere from 30 secconds to two minutes.
|
Urrm, what?! Assuming this were true, are you naive enough to think that this would still just cause two, isolated fires?
|
Not only that, there was a MUCH hotter fire in the WTC in 1975, which did nothing to damage the structure of the building.
|
Hotter in temperature? So what, I could get a hotter temperature out of a welding torch on the ground floor of the WTC. Do you recognise the difference between temperature, and the amount of energy being released into a building? No?
|
Not only that, but the WTC project manager, an engineer said that the towers were designed withstand having several fully loaded boeing 707's crash
into it.
|
We saw on our televisions that the WTC was capable of withstanding the impact of several fully loaded airliners crashing into it. What's your point?
|
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.
|
Well the orignal press reports ALL claimed that MELTING STEEL had cause the towers to collapse which had independent invesitagtors taking another look. Since all of our refutation of the original information, they have changed there story to say the steel WEAKENED rather than MELTED, that's an interesting fact in and of it self, however I think I've prooved my point about the WTC steel.
|
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.
|
LOL, perhaps you need to reread the post, THIS IS NOT LOGIC, or reasoning, this my freind is fact, simple fact about the inner workings of how controlled demolition is pulled off. I think you need to study how buildings are blown up, and perhaps even study up on what the defintion of the word "logic" is, but I don't believe on attacking the messanger as you do, so I will move on to this. But that, was a very pathetic point, it didn't even make sense.
|
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.
|
Man, you're quite venomous indeed, ludicrous arguments? Not nearly as ludicris as the points you seem to think are so much more important, Forsenic information always trumps logic, because we never know what people are thinking but we can almost always count on the laws of physics to remain the same. Let's just take a stab at a few of these.
|
Sorry about the venom! This discussion just wasn't going anywhere, and I would have preferred to see a few well-thought-out points, rather than a load of posting from conspiracy sites.
Here we go:
|
First of all the symetrical collapse is exactly what controlled demolition does, it's a very neat a mathetmatically calculated process, given the fact that it takes weeks to plan this precise and calculated collapse, what are the chances 19 arabic idiots fly into the building and make the collapse exactly like a controled demolition.
|
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.
Think of it this way, let's make it simple. The planes entered the building at what, 2/3? 3/4 the way up? After they'd come to a rest, and weakened the steel, what forces were acting on that section of the building? That's right, the weight of dozens of storeys acting from above, all trying to go downward. Not left, not right, but downwards. Gravity tends to act in this manner.
|
Not only that but nearly every square inch of the building was pulverized into dust particles, litterall turned into nothing but debrist, this wasan't done from the plane impact because the towers still stood an hour after the boeing slammed into the tower, Fire would not desentegrate metal IT WOULD MELT IT, and the fires would have had to be spread evenly throughout the enitre support structures of the building to weaken it in this way, however that aside, it would not have pulverized the concerete explain this. or show me any time when fire has pulverized concerete. So what about this ? haha I thought not.
|
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.
Can't really be bothered with this any more.
Similar discussions for: The Truth about 911 gutting the disinformation, LETS GET IT ON!!!!!
