Don't try this at home. Fire and steel building experiment

Draw your own conclusions. Test on steel.

I wonder what would happen in that experiment had the testers put 100,00 tons of weight on top of that building...oh, and taken out random load bearing support beams ..like say, when a 200 ton jet-liner evicerates the interior of a building going 500+MPH.

I would be shocked if even a (what?) 7 story structure wouldn't collapse.

So it explains how it loses its strength, which is waht every credible theory has explained. You cannot hold up 20-30 stoires of a building if it is weakened and the force of that collaspe is enough to destory anything in it's way to tthe ground.

Probably collapsed not at free fall speed.

Originally posted by piacenza
Probably collapsed not at free fall speed.

So the whole purpose of the controlled demolition was to speed up the collapse?

By the way you didn't state how long it should have taken the buildings to fall, any ideas?


[edit on 31-3-2007 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 31-3-2007 by Stateofgrace]

You guys crack me up, you really don't know how naive you sound with your Hollywood physics.

So the building held the weight of the plane for an hour and then decided, dam this is too heavy man! I gotsta go! See ya...? Huh?

And you know the fires weren't hot enough to do squat, or are you still hanging on that one? Well you know it's not healthy to hang on to past mistakes, we all make them, but fear of letting go just feeds your denial...

But wait wasn't there molten steel found in the basement? Hmmmmm so we have a contradiction? Can you figure it out?

Originally posted by ANOK
You guys crack me up, you really don't know how naive you sound with your Hollywood physics.

So the building held the weight of the plane for an hour and then decided, dam this is too heavy man! I gotsta go! See ya...? Huh?

And you know the fires weren't hot enough to do squat, or are you still hanging on that one? Well you know it's not healthy to hang on to past mistakes, we all make them, but fear of letting go just feeds your denial...

But wait wasn't there molten steel found in the basement? Hmmmmm so we have a contradiction? Can you figure it out?

Was it? How did explosives contribute to molten steel allegedly found at GZ weeks after the event?

I am curious.


[edit on 31-3-2007 by Stateofgrace]

There's another factor I have yet to see discussed anywhere: The aircraft that struck the WTC buildings not only had tons of fuel to feed the post crash fire; but they also had a large amount of oxygen on board that is normally used for emergency purposes. Has anyone ever seen the effect introducing pure (100%) O2 on a fire. I have! It's impressive and it can easily propagate a fire to reach temperatures where steel can melt.

Doing some quick research I learned that steel melts at approximately 2700 degrees F. While jet fuel alone cannot produce temps that melt steel; a fire fed with O2 will.

I tried to think of a good example and thought of the Valujet (Airtran) crash that resulted after an improperly stored oxygen cannister ignited a fire and intensified it. It attained a temperature of 3000 degrees.

I believe it's possible that the oxygen on the aircraft could have contributed to the intense heat. Check the video too! That's just ONE generator!!

[edit on 31-3-2007 by Freedom_for_sum]

Here is a youtube link to the same footage:



[edit on 31-3-2007 by GwionX]

Thanks for posting the Youtube video. Much better quality. I wonder whether the emergency O2 was considered during the investigation.

Even if the steel on the top floors or around the area the planes hit was weakened, the building does not suddenly become heavier - the potential energy of the floors above those weakened is no greater (barring the negligible mass of the plane).

For example's sake.

Imagine building a pyramid of cards. You build a strong base layer, and then progressively smaller layers on top.

Maybe you mess up a little and you knock over the top layer.

Providing the structure of those beneath was adequate to hold the weight initially, knocking those cards down on top of that structure does NOT knock it down.. Does this visual make sense?

If the towers were constructed in such a way as to be able to hold the weight of all the floors above them, and then some (to be able to cope with varying stresses such as storms and plane impacts, for example - I'm reasonably sure no-one argues the fact that after a plane hit the empire state building in 1945, ALL skyscrapers are designed to be able to withstand impacts from at least some planes - yes, I know some of you will argue this point anyway) there is no time at which even failing steel and falling upper floors will weigh MORE than they weigh just sitting around.


When it's not the middle of the night, I will work out some diagrams and simple equations to try and illustrate more precisely what I mean.

Originally posted by Inannamute
Even if the steel on the top floors or around the area the planes hit was weakened, the building does not suddenly become heavier - the potential energy of the floors above those weakened is no greater (barring the negligible mass of the plane).

For example's sake.

Imagine building a pyramid of cards. You build a strong base layer, and then progressively smaller layers on top.

Maybe you mess up a little and you knock over the top layer.

Providing the structure of those beneath was adequate to hold the weight initially, knocking those cards down on top of that structure does NOT knock it down.. Does this visual make sense?

Kind of..but you see the top floors some 100,000 tons didnt collapse on the WHOLE of the structure below. It collapsed on ONE FLOOR at a time. Then some 110,000 tons on the next floor down, then 120,000 on the next, ect.. So even though the bottom steel was larger, the falling weight was increasing -- Does this visual make any sense?

If the towers were constructed in such a way as to be able to hold the weight of all the floors above them, and then some (to be able to cope with varying stresses such as storms and plane impacts, for example - I'm reasonably sure no-one argues the fact that after a plane hit the empire state building in 1945, ALL skyscrapers are designed to be able to withstand impacts from at least some planes - yes, I know some of you will argue this point anyway) there is no time at which even failing steel and falling upper floors will weigh MORE than they weigh just sitting around.

These buildings were made of 1000's of separate parts--all designed to work together in harmony to give the structure strength. when the outter columns gave way due to the inward pulling of the floor supports as they sagged, the building's parts were no longer working together in harmony to support the structure.

And even though the buildings were designed to withstand a plane collision, they were not designed to withstand an intentional full speed 767 collision, especially one filled with fuel. That was not in the design-- They designed the buildings for a 707 trying to avoid the building flying at a much slower speed, and the fuel was not factored in. That is a very big difference.



[edit on 1-4-2007 by GwionX]

Well when I saw the collapse live on tv on that day I was expecting the top part to fall not a near straight to ground collapse of the whole building.

the top starts to tilt and fall.. somehow the rest of the building decided then and there to obliterate completely?

I'm not going into physics and expanded info on this (so many topics and sites and books etc covered so much already)

But on that day watching it just looked and felt wrong.

My first thought before the collapse was even complete was, what the f...?

not at all scientific but you know what they say about first inclines

[edit on 1-4-2007 by David2012]

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Was it? How did explosives contribute to molten steel allegedly found at GZ weeks after the event?

Was it, what was what? Molten steel? You think there wasn't any found?

And why bring up explosives? Did I mention explosives?

How do you think the molten steel got there? Friction from a pancake collapse?

Hollywood physics and some questions for you...

What do you think happened to the massive central core in this 'pancake collapse? How do you think the facade broke up and was ejected up to 600 hundred feet laterally? From gravity?
Why did the top of WTC 2 stop it's momentum and cause a global collapse when it wasn't sitting flush? Remember all four corners of all 3 buildings fell at the same time.How does that happen in a chaotic natural gravity driven collapse?
Pls show the rules of physics that explains this, cause I can use physics law to prove this is impossible, but I'll let you go first and I'll even give you a head start...

How does this create a pancake collapse?

Inannamute what you said and I quote

the building does not suddenly become heavier - the potential energy of the floors above those weakened is no greater (barring the negligible mass of the plane).[quote\]
Maybe you have not hard of this magical force called “g-force”. Now I’m way to drunk to even google some equations but I have mustered a test, take a ten pound weight and hold it for… lets say ten minuets, then take a break, smoke ‘em if you got ‘em. Then pick up that same weight throw it up eleven feet in the air and catch it. Does it weight more I think it wil? And that folks is called g-force


[edit on 1-4-2007 by Mr Mxyztplk]

xan someone link the mall fire from teh year or so afterwards where it burned hotter but didn`t collapse please

oh and the bomber hitting the empire state building.

911 CT are so funny to me. anti american fools. steel melts at 2500 f.
one plane had 9,806 gallons of highly combustible jet fuel. it burns so intensely that it melted the steel girders.. and what dose everyone of the CT think? the fuel just stayed on the top floors? never had a chance to spread? what, there was nothing else in either building that couldnt egnite?
if some of these ppl trying to prove this idiotic theory would construct their time in a diff manner, maybe some good could come from their way.
but probably not.

Originally posted by GwionX
I wonder what would happen in that experiment had the testers put 100,00 tons of weight on top of that building...oh, and taken out random load bearing support beams ..like say, when a 200 ton jet-liner evicerates the interior of a building going 500+MPH.

I would be shocked if even a (what?) 7 story structure wouldn't collapse.

Doesn't ANYONE here use evidence for their conclusions??? Or is it STILL, 5 years later, the same argument of "ooh big plane big building big boom".

It all fits!


Look at the numbers for christ sake. We know the damage, the temperature, we know what damage the building could take, and this was TWICE the amount the building took that day. Moreover the redistributed load was about 25% higher in some places and 20% lowers in others. While an extra live load of 2000% was possible.

The temperature didn't even come close to those that would allow the steel to weaken. Yet lets all believe it did!

so you think the temp in there never got above 2,500? with the fuel that was released? look up the temp that steel melts at?

Originally posted by C21H30O2I
911 CT are so funny to me. anti american fools. steel melts at 2500 f.
one plane had 9,806 gallons of highly combustible jet fuel. it burns so intensely that it melted the steel girders.. and what dose everyone of the CT think? the fuel just stayed on the top floors? never had a chance to spread? what, there was nothing else in either building that couldnt egnite?
if some of these ppl trying to prove this idiotic theory would construct their time in a diff manner, maybe some good could come from their way.

but probably not.

Maybe you should lookup the temperature at which kerosine burns.

Or maybe you should look up the temperatures the steel in the two towers saw that day.

Because it IS available you know. And if you would've done your homework we wouldn't have to listen to your idiotic rantings that are purely based on what you believe is true.

Now scram please.