Twisted I-Beams of 91' L.A. Riots

I witnessed the L.A. riots first hand and was able to tour much of the burnt city, I am a Asbestos Removal Contractor so I had access to a lot of building and let me tell you, huge I-Beams 3 inches thick bent, melted and twisted just under fire without jet fuel.
Jet fuel would melt the I-beams in the World Trade Center, because the asbestos fire proofing was removed due to it being hazardous. Nothing can replace Asbestos as a fire proofing. The building fell to the ground because the I-beams melted and the weight of the top floors was too much for the other floors to hold and they all fell down. BECAUSE OF THE TERRORIST WHO FLEW THE JETS THAT WERE FULL OF JET FUEL, INTO THEM, WE ALL SEEN IT HAPPEN. There was no inside job, that is crazy.
Another Note: This is also why the space shuttle blew up in 1984, they removed the asbestos gaskets on the rocket boosters, it caught fire and exploded.

Wern't the buildings in LA burning for hours not minutes?

MR

Didn't most of the jet fuel from the plane which hit WTC2 burn off outside in the big explosion after it collided?

I'm interested in facts
This video brings some pretty factual things together that I never knew, so of coarse after watching this video which led me to more facts surround the issue, I may of been enlightened. if this video is true, then we are all truely blind, and maybe in big trouble.

This video puts things in a whole different diamention, one that I believe I knew something about, I tell you, I always say, you learn something new everyday!



video.google.com...

I would recommend everyone watch this video:

9/11 Press For Truth

It's made in conjunction with the "Jersey Girls" (widows of WTC victims that forced the Bush administration into having an "independent" 9/11 enquiry) and uses the well respected and renowned timeline of 9/11 compiled by Paul Thompson. It's good because it avoids the sticky subject of physical evidence but goes some way to show complicity by other means.

Show photos of the beams or do not even bother with this 'story'. You typing can be considered noting more than FICTION as we all watched the coverage and no one here seems to recall these "twisted beams.' Should you even be able to produce a photo, we will have no context for WHAT was burning near these "beams" or what other forces could have been exerted on it.

Try harder to source, cite and back you wild claims up wit FACT and EVIDENCE in the future.

Thanks.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Slap Nuts]

I've heard stories of open-atmosphere fires melting steel, but there must be some information that's being left out, because not even government agencies are trying to suggest open-atmosphere hydrocarbon fires will melt steel. The temperatures these fires burn at is well-known, and the temperatures at which steel begins to lose strength or even melt are known, and they don't compare.

At any rate, what's more troubling for me is the massive amount of beams that were chucked out with clean separations on the ends, no twisting or bending or anything, core columns even ejected with even slices right through them. And one section of perimeter columns still linked, weighing around 22 tons, was ejected laterally about 600 feet onto the roof of the Winter Garden building, with no signs of twisting or other deformation from torsion.

PHARAOH1133,

That has to be one of the fastest conversions I have ever witnessed.....start a thread post an opinion watch a movie and three post later change your opinion....Ill give you credit you did not let preconceived notions get in the way of the facts.....Welcome to ATS!

Another day, another dollar, another CT killer, another bluff.

Don't you understand we do this for a living, you cant just come in here and say "well You guys are wacko, I saw metal melt and beams bend.."

Ya I see that to when Magneto bends them.. he must have been there on 9/11..

Anyway proof is your friend. as they tell the high school slut.. "Put up or shut up"

I take the advice and prove your claims before making an idiot our of yourself.

[edit on 10/12/2006 by ThichHeaded]

I think Pharaoh has already decided he's changed his mind!
Phew! That was quick!

MR

First of all let me say I'm sorry for replies I may of made which do not have pictures or links to prove my point. (give me a little time and I will)
I happen to be new here and am just learning, as far (as posting goes.)
However I thought that this is how we all learn, we talk, we listen, we make suggestions.
please just give me a small break, I respect all of you and everything you have to say.
Please don't be rude, or call me names, lets just hurdle this stuff and be more respectfull, and productive, If I say something you don't agree with lets just debate the facts, then form conclusions based on facts which seem to make the best sense. I do not tell lies, and things I say without immediate proof are just my opinions of first hand knowledge, I think I deserve. From now on however, I will attach proof, being that it seems I am not taken at my word on things I consider to be facts.
Again I want to be friends with everyone here and I'm not looking to make anyone mad.
I enjoy this site and wish to get along.
Respectfully Submitted,
PHARAOH1133

www.fragmentsweb.org...

Will post more soon.

PHARAOH1133

Yeah, I think some of you guys really jumped down his throat. Like I said, I've heard people say they've seen steel melted from fire, but I think there's some missing information as no credible source has ever claimed or showed this to be possible.

British Steel has done tests, NIST has done tests, British Steel has done tests with NIST, I know of a "Cardigan" test, though I don't know if this is one of the aforementioned tests or the name of another organization. There have been tests where steel has been subjected to controlled, very efficient hydrocarbon fires. Engulfed in such fire, basically, buried in combustibles that are burned very quickly.

The temperature of the steel rises very quickly in these tests because all of the fuel, a LOT of fuel, is being consumed all at once, producing a lot of heat in a very short amount of time (45 minutes to an hour). These tests have shown that it would require special conditions (like a furnace) to heat steel to much beyond 600 C.

If steel was enclosed in a very small space in which there was massive heat output from an efficient fire, for an extended period of time, then I could conceive of massive warping, but still not melting. Melting steel would require a different chemical reaction, not just fire, or at least a different kind of fire in a special environment (again, furnace), in my opinion.

None of these special circumstances would have applied to the WTC fires. There were gashes in the buildings, there were broken windows, smoke was exiting the buildings with no trouble at all. The heat was not being enclosed, but rather the fires would have been more open-atmosphere than anything else. The combustibles would not have been stacked in mountains on each floor, but would have been scattered and fitting with an office environment. The fires did not last very long, and for much of the time they produced thick, black, sooty smoke, rich in uncombusted particles, or unused fuel. They only produced lighter smoke right after impacts before the jet fuel burned away, and if that heat didn't transfer while the jet fuel fires still existed, you know it wasn't going to transfer after they ceased to exist, and those were the most efficient fires in the buildings.

Would some of you PLEASE go away and learn the dif' between TEMPERATURE and HEAT.

Here's a clue:

Suppose I set a fire in the corner of a 1 acre room, (A floor of the WTC) and you measure the temperature of the fire (IN the flames) for arguments sake, at 100C.

Then you moved to the CENTRE of that room and using the same thermometer, measured the temp' at thar spot, SUPPOSE, for arguments sake it was 50C.

NOW: Go to the diametrically opposed corner, light ANOTHER fire, walk BACK to the centre of the room and check the temp.

I'LL BET YOU REAL HARD EARNED CASH THAT THE TEMP HAS GONE UP.

BUT!!!

BUT, both fires STILL register 100C, at source.

Until some of you fools get an education, you'll be here arguing nonsense until you're old and grey.

NOT Simon Grey.

I think people forget how explosions work sometimes.

You see all this red/yellow/orange stuff in this picture?



Its called fire... and its burning ALL of the jet fuel on impact. Jet fuel was designed to burn faster.

So right when the jet fuel burned up, it set the office furniture on fire. But the fire was NOT strong enough because there was more stuff to burn than there was oxygen. That is why there was so much black smoke. So much stuff to burn, so little oxygen to help. So that means the fires did not reach high temperatures.



You see, very little fire. I think there is even a woman standing in the hole somewhere.

The key here: The black smoke indicates a fuel-rich fire. Fuel rich fires do not burn hot enough to damage steel.


Also, I would like mention how "heat sinks" on your computer processor work. They absorb all the heat, and spread it over a large surface area. No one spot on the heat sink is significantly hotter than another spot at a given time, because the heat is spreading. The same for a VW air-cooled engine. The tin around it was designed to absorb heat, so no one spot would be too hot, and it would cool faster.

The WTC 1 and 2 buildings were made out of steel in such a way that if heat were focused on one area, the heat would spread over the entire building. It would have to burn for hours and hours before one single spot got hot enough to melt.


[edit on 13-10-2006 by Slice]

Originally posted by Slice
The key here: The black smoke indicates a fuel-rich fire.

Or fuel-poor.

Technically, black smoke indicates an inefficient burn somewhere, whether with the oxygen or the actual material being combusted, or whatever. It only indicates uncombusted hydrocarbon, or unused fuel, in the form of soot, which is why it's black in the first place.

What I think it was, was lack of fuel, excess of oxygen. My two cents.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Slice
The key here: The black smoke indicates a fuel-rich fire.

Or fuel-poor.

What I think it was, was lack of fuel, excess of oxygen. My two cents.

We all know what is inside office buildings.... PAPER is one thing...

I highly doubt that it was "fuel-poor".

When something is "fuel-rich" some of the combustibles are unable to find oxygen to burn with so they are instead ejected with the rising heat.

[edit on 13-10-2006 by Slice]

Originally posted by jofomu

I'LL BET YOU REAL HARD EARNED CASH THAT THE TEMP HAS GONE UP.

BUT!!!

BUT, both fires STILL register 100C, at source.

Until some of you fools get an education, you'll be here arguing nonsense until you're old and grey.

This fool has an education in fire science. I have the text book The Essentials of Firefighting sitting in front of me right now.

Lightweight and Truss Construction Hazard

One of the most serious building construction hazards facing firefighters today is the increased use of lightweight and trussd support systems. Lightweight construction is mostly found in houses, apartments, and small comercial buildings. Lghtweight steel trusses are made from a long steel bar tht is bent at a 90 degree angle with flat or angular pieces welded to the top and bottom. For steel trusses, 1,000 degrees F (538 C) is the critical temperature.

This is what a strip mall is made of, not one of the tallest buildings in the world. Sorry but no cigar, what has been shown here is the lightweight steel trusses used in a stripmall, not the huge steel I beams used at WTC. Different animal.

Edit to add: One day I will scan pertinent sections of some of my text books.




[edit on 13-10-2006 by LoneGunMan]

My educated and experienced opinion is that the sprinkler system, that was working that day made everything at low heat. That building was billowing steam and black low-heat smoke. I have seen it many times, if it is oxygen starved it produces a thick black smoke without white steam. This was a fire that was not producing much heat because the sprinklers were removing that heat.

Edit to add a quote from me on another post of mine:

This is a good time for sprinkler systems 101.

Fire suppresion in the way of sprinklers is quite a neat thing. The systems work extermely well in either putting out the fire, or at leat removing enough heat to keep it manageble untiil some attack lines can put it out. This is the same for WTC. Each sprinkler head will most times have a small glass vial that has some liquid and a bubble in it. When this liquid reaches 155 degrees (unless in a kitchen over a stove) the bubble expands and breaks the glass vial. This turns only the sprinkler heads directly above the fire on. This does two things. First it makes it so the limited amount of availible water until the FD arrives is concentrated over the fire only. Second it keeps excessive damage to a minimum.

Now the neat part. Every building with a sprinkler system has a fire department connection. What we do is connect an engine/pumper to this connection, we then throttle up and super charge it with the power of a class A pumper. This makes each on of those sprinlers into a very effective fire hose. This is why those fire trucks on 911 were crushed, they were right next to that building forcing 300 lbs of water pressure into that building. All large buildings have redundent lines leading to the sprinkler system, and this is what keeps it from losing control. That is why you see so much white steam coming form the floors on WTC, they were cooling the fires and keeping it from getting too hot.

It is this fact and many other that made me come here in the first place. Of course you dont hear this from the media. Most people dont realize we super charge the system with multiple apperatus.

[edit on 14-10-2006 by LoneGunMan]

Originally posted by Slice
We all know what is inside office buildings.... PAPER is one thing...

I highly doubt that it was "fuel-poor".

When something is "fuel-rich" some of the combustibles are unable to find oxygen to burn with so they are instead ejected with the rising heat.

Unless you think the amount of fuel increased as the jet fuel burned away, this would not make sense. The smoke started out lighter, and then TURNED darker around the same time NIST asserts the jet fuel had burned away, which most people on both aisles should agree with.