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

scram? ha thats funny scram. I have looked it up. I seen the planes hit with my own eyes! enough said. all you anti american ppl playing this beat dog. need to just move to Iran, Iraq, Syria. and be done with your selves.
I'm sure you'll have a much better life there.

Originally posted by C21H30O2I
scram? ha thats funny scram. I have looked it up. I seen the planes hit with my own eyes! enough said. all you anti american ppl playing this beat dog. need to just move to Iran, Iraq, Syria. and be done with your selves.
I'm sure you'll have a much better life there.

So answer these simple questions:
a) what temperature did the steel reach?
b) at what temperature does it melt?
c) what temperature does kerosine burn at?

What happens ?
The explosion occurs through the motion (propagation) of a flame, or combustion wave, through the ullage of the tank. The flame is a thin layer of intense chemical reaction in which the fuel vapor molecules and oxygen in the air combine to produce high temperature (3600 degree Fahrenheit) combustion products, water vapor and carbon dioxide. The motion of the flame sweeps up or lofts the liquid fuel in the bottom of the tank, creating a fireball of burning fuel with the remaining oxygen in the tank. Any liquid remaining on the tank bottom may also continue to burn after the fuel vapor is combusted.

You're talking about a jet engine.

Originally posted by ANOK

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?

Excellent somebody who has made a claim. I take you will backing up your claims with calculations.

Please tell me how much explosive force it would take to eject steel beams 600 feet. Please explain how this massive explosive force was not Cleary heard.

Please tell how molten metal, not steel by the way,was found at GZ weeks afterwards...

WTC 2 wasn’t sitting flush? I’m sorry you will have to explain what you are talking about here.

I assume you mean the lilt that occurred as the external columns failed. This tilt I assume you have figured out should have continued correct?

Actually no you a completely incorrect. The Tilt was stopped as the weight became dynamic and acting upon gravity starts to fall. Do you think that gravity does not act on weights that are dynamic, because if these are your laws of physics then yes, your laws of physics were broken.

The upper portion of the towers was not monolithic solid objects and it did not fall onto a solid object. It fell onto three seperate but interlinked components.

The core, the external supporting columns and the floor trusses. The weight would meet resistance from the stronger supporting stuctures but as it broke up and fell onto the floor trusses, they would simply collapse. This collapse of the floor trusses would simply render the external columns useless and they were violently flung outwards from the actions taking place inside the towers.

The pancaking that happened around the core was the pancaking of the floors, not the core, not the external columns.

NIST have not rejected the pancake theory, they have rejected it as the cause of the collapse which they have said quite clearly was cause by the bowing and buckling of the external columns.

I trust this clears up your miss conception.



[edit on 1-4-2007 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 1-4-2007 by Stateofgrace]

yes i was, im trying to find the 3 diff articles that i read pertaing to this. but go figure, all i can find now, says the fire alone could not of melted the steel alone.

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true. and
Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

So i admit i was wrong. but man listen I'm an American and this is just a hard pill to swallow this 911 CT. my apologies

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Please tell me how much explosive force it would take to eject steel beams 600 feet. Please explain how this massive explosive force was not Cleary heard.

Doublethink spotted.
You're trying to argue that gravity would be able to cause this feature by using the absence of audible explosives as an argument.
So in essence you're saying gravity could do it, but explosions can't.


Oh and btw, maybe you should read these if you think there weren't any audible explosions:

911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Please tell how modern metal, not steel by the way,was found at GZ weeks afterwards...

Modern metal?

Please tell me why they found molten steel (Louizeaux) without the fires ever coming close to that temperature?

edit: sry for double post, forgot to edit!

Originally posted by C21H30O2I
yes i was, im trying to find the 3 diff articles that i read pertaing to this. but go figure, all i can find now, says the fire alone could not of melted the steel alone.

You're not going to find anything else, trust me
A few TV-stations reported this wrongly but no investigation ever reported molten steel and even disregarded the molten steel they found after the collapses.

According to nist, most of the steel didn't see temperatures above 250°C and none became hotter than 650°C.

Originally posted by C21H30O2I
So i admit i was wrong. but man listen I'm an American and this is just a hard pill to swallow this 911 CT. my apologies

You're one of the few who will admit he is wrong. And that is a wonderfull feature to encounter in these discussions.



[edit on 1-4-2007 by Shroomery]

well the planes had a contributing factor, did they not? and im still unclear on the whole thing. our gov sent in explosives to bring all the way down?
and for what? to goto war? Ive only been reading into the wtc ct so much, for it makes me sick to think about. i guess im just not smart enough to understand the whole thing. someone plz help expand my mind. i dont know who to believe. and with the pentagon, well thats crazy to me aswell
plane no plane, missle. something happend that awful day. friends of mine were lost in the towers. its just all crazy to me. and anger is the first thing that took over me.

Originally posted by C21H30O2I
well the planes had a contributing factor, did they not?

They damaged the buildings yes, but we know those numbers too. And we know the damage the towers could take.

Originally posted by C21H30O2I
and im still unclear on the whole thing. our gov sent in explosives to bring all the way down?
and for what? to goto war? Ive only been reading into the wtc ct so much, for it makes me sick to think about. i guess im just not smart enough to understand the whole thing. someone plz help expand my mind. i dont know who to believe. and with the pentagon, well thats crazy to me aswell
plane no plane, missle. something happend that awful day. friends of mine were lost in the towers. its just all crazy to me. and anger is the first thing that took over me.

If anyone tells you he knows with certainty the reason behind it he's probably lying. This is larger than just the US government hunting for oil though.

But if you like we can continue this through pm or preferably email instead of derailing the thread.

Originally posted by Shroomery
But if you like we can continue this through pm or preferably email instead of derailing the thread.

yes i would like that. id like to know as much as possible about this subject.

Originally posted by ANOK
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...

Ok, I'll give you benefit of the doubt. You say you can prove it impossible by using the laws of physics? I would like to see your detailed report. The debate can end right here and now. Let me see your proof...complete with all the scientific principle that apply including the differential equations required to make such a proof.

Doublethink spotted.

You're trying to argue that gravity would be able to cause this feature by using the absence of audible explosives as an argument.
So in essence you're saying gravity could do it, but explosions can't.

Incorrect, there is only one way massive steel beams can be thrown 600 feet, energy.

Massive amounts of energy, this can only come from one of two places.

1. The energy released as the buildings collapsed under the force of gravity.

2. The energy released by massive amounts of explosive devices.

If you believe the second, simply offer up your calculations to show how much energy it would take for explosives devices to throw steel beams 600 feet.

Then tell me why this amount of explosives device would not produce a sound.

Let me state that I don't believe the WTC 1& 2 were brought down by explosives charges. Thermite maybe, but not high explosives.

That said I don't buy the gov't's theory either. Every piece of footage I've seen in slow motion show catastrophic failure of the outer support structure.

I think the CT'ers are missing the forest from the trees. If those outer supports failed after only less then 2 hours of moderate fire, how really safe are other high rise buildings?

Trust me, jet fuel only produces what is considered moderate temperatures for a fire. Someone mention the emergency oxygen canisters, you'll never find them. They would have burst either on impact or shortly afterwards releasing their contents in a loud and audible bang that would actually snuffed some of the flame out due to the sudden release of pressure like blowing out a candle.

The one thing that still bothers me in the footage shown is that of the molten metal/material that I've seen dripping from the the corner of the building. It has to be metal in my thinking because it's falling straight down and not drifting like other lighter burning materials does during fires I've witnessed.

Anybody who believes the official conclusion or many of the conspiracy theories are being absurdly naive. The truth about what happened to WTC 1&2 lies elsewhere but we'll probably never know for sure because both the govt. and the corporations have committed a massive cover up.

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.

nicely put .

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

Look up WTC4, 5, and 6 and prepared to be shocked.

All of that weight is divided up by all of the columns. The columns are designed to hold the loads they do, and then some. It isn't like you're sitting up random pieces of steel and putting tons of weight on them and hoping they don't fall down, and THEN putting fire all around them. It's posts like these that show how little people actually understand of any engineering.

Oh, I must have missed the memo where WTC 4,5, and 6 were struck by 20 ton Jet-liners going full speed and filled with fuel...and had that much weight above their (non-existent) impact zone.

prepare to be shocked...yeah...right.

Originally posted by GwionX
Oh, I must have missed the memo where WTC 4,5, and 6 were struck by 20 ton Jet-liners going full speed and filled with fuel...and had that much weight above their (non-existent) impact zone.

prepare to be shocked...yeah...right.

QwionX you make me sick, REALLY.

OK, everyone forget WTC 1 and 2. Just forget about it. The debunkers use 1 and 2 as their only defense, because jets crashed into them. Some reason they don't understand the building was designed to have a jet crash into it. So, lets stop talking about that, so they have NOTHING to hold on to..

Ok, lets take QwionX's idiotic final last straw explination as why the building collapsed, and get rid of it. What do we have? WTC 7.

Please tell me, how a PROTECTED WITH FIREPROOFING building, can fall do to fire? NIST and FEMA/ASCE both state there was NOT enough damage to make WTC 7 collapse, and it was mostly due to fire. So now what? What are you going to hang on to now QwionX? Whats your next excuse that you will use to make this entire thing a giant loop so we have to start over from the beginning? How much does the government pay you to spread your BS?

Originally posted by GwionX
Oh, I must have missed the memo where WTC 4,5, and 6 were struck by 20 ton Jet-liners going full speed and filled with fuel...and had that much weight above their (non-existent) impact zone.

prepare to be shocked...yeah...right.

Based on your other post I'd say you aren't anywhere near qualified to compare the damages. The plane impacts knocked out less than 15% of the perimeter columns on JUST the impacted floors, and NIST could only get around 7 core columns out of almost 50 total to fail in their worst case scenario, all within a building that had redundancy that was definitely greater than 200%.

WTC4, 5, and 6 were not high-rises, were not subject to the same strict building code, and they were all totally bombarded by heavy debris from both collapses. And they had severe fires, fully-involved if any of them were, that burned pretty much all day. And all they had were local failures, basically where they were hit with debris.

The point is, fire doesn't cause steel buildings to collapse. Heat transfer to steel to lose such-and-such strength is theoretical and not practical. There have been actual scientific tests to show how fire affects steel structures, whereas others rely on steel as blacksmiths use it. Huge difference. And those scientific studies that actually test FIRE on STEEL STRUCTURES is where you want to look.

Originally posted by WTC7isKEY
QwionX you make me sick, REALLY.

Ok, lets take QwionX's idiotic final last straw explination

How much does the government pay you to spread your BS?

Why don't you settle down and talk to him without the insults? He hasn't done anything to you to warrant that.