fire not hot enough to melt steel at wtc ? here's proof

I am just wondering that the amount of tim ethe towers stood before collapse would be long enough to heat the steel to the right temps to even get it a half strength. Since it seems it would take a long time to heat steel, especialy since the second hit building fell before the first hit building.

Originally posted by PisTonZOR

Originally posted by kix
If a metal looses half its strengt at 450 degrees explain how a diesel engine does not break since the compresion and heat is over 450 C.... if it lost half its strenght, it would bend, break or melt...

Juggle anyway you want it, fire ALONE could not bring down WTC period.

Because Diesel engines are designed for the rigors of combustion, a 1300 foot tall building isn't?

Also how about posting something allittle longer?

I dont post a little longer because its stupid trying to convince people who come up with preposterous claims, and side arguing, and completelly missing the point.

FACT IS YOU DONT WANT TO LISTEN you jut point the same ol tired BS over and over agin but to entertain myself allow me to answer and pour some questions that I hope you can answer and not come with infantile retorts.

Diesel engines are made very strong no doubt about it, do you really think a 110 storey high rise able to withstand fires, a plane crash (note I did not say attack so dont derail this) is made with a non rigorous metal ? Do you think colums of more than 30 inches thick are less strong than a punny 1.9 litter engine in a VW?

Also factor in if you know math and thermodinamics, that the whole grid of metal and the more than a thosand feet of columns perform like a GIGANTIC HEATSINK, if you dont believe me, please try to heat a small wire with a match and then try to heat a large raosting pot, see the difference? its called thermal disipation nad it acts like a heat sink....maybe if you look into your computer youll know what I am talking about.

One of the big discoveries of manking is steel and you need very high temps and HOT iar pumped in to be able to make the heat to make steel, a conventional oven will NEVER MAKE STEEL, likewise to mel t steel you need the same conditions, and those were nOT REMOTELLY present in the plane and fuel ALONE scenario....

Simply put the building did not collapse because of the fires, even the reports say that...

do you want a longer explanation and more info, or that is enough for you?

Ill say it again FIRE ALONE and a 767 did not bring down the WTC..period

Diesel engines are made very strong no doubt about it, do you really think a 110 storey high rise able to withstand fires, a plane crash (note I did not say attack so dont derail this) is made with a non rigorous metal ?

First of all, people like you keep saying the same old crap. YES it was designed to take fires and YES it was built to take a plane crash.

That being said, it WASN'T designed to take a heavily laden 767 pounds of fuel hitting it at 400mph. It also WASN'T designed to take 90000 pounds of jetfuel lit up inside it. It also WASN'T intended to have worn out fire protection.

YES I beleive of VW Diesel engine can tolerate more heat then a building structure can.

Do you think colums of more than 30 inches thick are less strong than a punny 1.9 litter engine in a VW?

What does thickness have anything to do with it?

Also factor in if you know math and thermodinamics, that the whole grid of metal and the more than a thosand feet of columns perform like a GIGANTIC HEATSINK, if you dont believe me, please try to heat a small wire with a match and then try to heat a large raosting pot, see the difference? its called thermal disipation nad it acts like a heat sink....maybe if you look into your computer youll know what I am talking about.

The world trade centres are not giant Zalman heatsinks, and secondly, I have got no idea what this has to do with 90000 pounds of fuel inside a very tall building.

One of the big discoveries of manking is steel and you need very high temps and HOT iar pumped in to be able to make the heat to make steel, a conventional oven will NEVER MAKE STEEL, likewise to mel t steel you need the same conditions, and those were nOT REMOTELLY present in the plane and fuel ALONE scenario....

HELLO? YOU THERE?

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MELTING STEEL.

Simply put the building did not collapse because of the fires, even the reports say that...

Actually.... No they dont....

do you want a longer explanation and more info, or that is enough for you?

More please.

If they knew WTC 6 was going to collapse, why did they have to "pull it" down with cables? Or are you confusing WTC 6 with WTC 7?

Typo, I meant building 7.

Looks to me like molten steel coming fromt he WTC. Flowing from the buildings. So if that is there, why? How? And obviously this proves being lied to about 9/11, why? Well i wonder.

Can you please get a picture bigger than that?

[edit on 14-4-2007 by PisTonZOR]

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
That being said, it WASN'T designed to take a heavily laden 767 pounds of fuel hitting it at 400mph. It also WASN'T designed to take 90000 pounds of jetfuel lit up inside it. It also WASN'T intended to have worn out fire protection.

The world trade centres are not giant Zalman heatsinks, and secondly, I have got no idea what this has to do with 90000 pounds of fuel inside a very tall building.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by PisTonZOR]

Where are you getting the source for the amont of fuel inside the buildling ? The NIST and FEMA reports state that most of the fuel was burned off in the intial explosion that occurd outside the building and did not cause any stuctural damage and that any fuel left would have burned off quickly.

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
That's funny because demolition firms have already stated that pull it down IS NOT A KNOWN DEMOLITION TERM.

That's funny that grandma L. from CDI coined the phrase "implosion". Which means to "pull" the building in on itself using gravity. It is a term used by CD companies. Please support your theory and quote some experts specifically saying it "PULL" is not a CD term. Thanks.

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
What does thickness have anything to do with it?

If you know structural engineering, thickness (area) has EVERYTHING to do with it. All design is based on area.

Thickness is not area. My point was that thickness isn't going to magically change the rate at which steel looses its strength.... and I'm pretty sure the steel columns were hollow.

I'll get answers to the others ASAP.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by PisTonZOR]

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
Thickness is not area.

What? To find the area of a 30 x 30, 4 inch thick box column, you take 30 x 30 = 900 inches squared. Then you subtract the area that is hollow. Hint, this area is found from the THICKNESS of the column.

My point was that thickness isn't going to magically change the rate at which steel looses its strength

Strength is defined as a load over an area. So, yes, the thickness will magically change the rate at which steel looses it's strength.

Originally posted by PisTonZOR

First of all, people like you keep saying the same old crap. YES it was designed to take fires and YES it was built to take a plane crash.

That being said, it WASN'T designed to take a heavily laden 767 pounds of fuel hitting it at 400mph. It also WASN'T designed to take 90000 pounds of jetfuel lit up inside it. It also WASN'T intended to have worn out fire protection.

Dont get angry because you cannot grasp your own missunderstandings.

I wont say it again because it is clear you dont listen so read carefully, MOST OF THE FUEL BURNED OUTSIDE the WTC, there is one thing called inertia and that fuel had 320 knots of inertia, do you think a liquid at that speed stops?, Exercise number one grab a bucket, fill it with water throw the water as hard as you can against some branches...elaborate.

YES I beleive of VW Diesel engine can tolerate more heat then a building structure can.

You are wrong, the diesel engine without proper cooling would Never melt, but will fail, also diesel engines are not made of steel, simply Iron does the Job. Excersice number two: Go to sears and buy a Steel (read expensive) wrench, put it on the oven at max leave for 11 hours, se if it melts or losses its strengt (BTW Natural and propane gas, have higher temps than Jet Fuel)

Do you think colums of more than 30 inches thick are less strong than a punny 1.9 litter engine in a VW?..........

What does thickness have anything to do with it?

Everything, If it did not the WTC would have been made with columns if 1 inch thick, since thickness is irrelevant according to your aletrnate universe Physics LOL

Also factor in if you know math and thermodinamics, that the whole grid of metal and the more than a thosand feet of columns perform like a GIGANTIC HEATSINK, if you dont believe me, please try to heat a small wire with a match and then try to heat a large raosting pot, see the difference? its called thermal disipation nad it acts like a heat sink....maybe if you look into your computer youll know what I am talking about.

The world trade centres are not giant Zalman heatsinks, and secondly, I have got no idea what this has to do with 90000 pounds of fuel inside a very tall building.



ON THE CONTRARY any extructure that has a BIG mass is harder to heat than one with small mass, and more so if that material that makes the mass is heat condutive, Metal is a great heat conductor, why do you think radiators are made of metal?, the columns of WTC were bolted and welded they transfered a lot of heat along the structure, so much in fact that there are photos of guys standing in the openings of the WTC, if metal was so hot how would they walk and be there...

HELLO? YOU THERE?

Yes I am here trying to teach you something

do you want a longer explanation and more info, or that is enough for you?

More please.

OK I have done my part, did you understand?

And to add even more info to your confusing math and mechanics, if the buildings were "devastated by the planes why the top did not come off?, why they stood?

answer, because they could...

Originally posted by nimonic90
Almost all metal used today is a mixture and therefore an alloy. finding out who produced the steel for the wtc and what the alloy (steel) was mixed with would result in a clearer understanding of the melting temp.

Nice to see somebody sheding light on the basic points we missed.


By the way, too many assumptions on this thread.
There are various parts that have to be analyzed before you go so bold to bash every opposing opinion. I hope you are experienced in that field. If so it would be great to show your degree, or specialty.

Most of the people seem to have just partial knowlede on some of the parts. Which I don't blame, but without a change in your behaviour it will lead to an endless argument recycling the same articles, the same pictures, the same names, the same assumtion.

Originally posted by frenzy_boy

Originally posted by nimonic90
Almost all metal used today is a mixture and therefore an alloy. finding out who produced the steel for the wtc and what the alloy (steel) was mixed with would result in a clearer understanding of the melting temp.

Nice to see somebody sheding light on the basic points we missed.

By the way, too many assumptions on this thread.
There are various parts that have to be analyzed before you go so bold to bash every opposing opinion. I hope you are experienced in that field. If so it would be great to show your degree, or specialty.

Most of the people seem to have just partial knowlede on some of the parts. Which I don't blame, but without a change in your behaviour it will lead to an endless argument recycling the same articles, the same pictures, the same names, the same assumtion.

It is not difficult to set an approximate range for various structural steel alloys to establish a "half strength" or "2/3 strength" point. It should not be that much of a challenge to independently verify.

It's hard to find unbiased sources. Most people have pointed out the administration links of Popular Mechanics. And 911 Truth is too unfocused and uncritical, according to some.

Is there a 'clean' source like a European structural analysis company that can speak authoritatively about how steel loses strength?

Has this already been answered somewhere? I haven't seen it if so.

Originally posted by nimonic90

Is there a 'clean' source like a European structural analysis company that can speak authoritatively about how steel loses strength?

Has this already been answered somewhere? I haven't seen it if so.

A clean source which would be free from any pressure is crucial.
But I doubt the government would want to fund any further investigation led by a foreign team. Even making them to consider the option will need a nation wide petition.

Here's a link to an article talking about the pyroclastic flows seen, that is the huge column of material that is ejected. These are usually only associated with volcanic eruptions and have some far-reaching implications.

www.plaguepuppy.net...

Here are some quotes to convince you to actually read the article....

"For such clouds to have been created in the collapses of the towers a large portion of the concrete and gypsum in the buildings had to be turned almost instantly into dust of a very small particle size, in the

Also, look out for the clip: spire_01 from the first link above.

I will post it if I can work out how, but it clearly shows a remnant of the core surviving the first phase of the collapse and then beginning to topple and then... simply turning to dust, all at the same time. Someone please explain to me how a gravitational collapse can turn steel to powder.

Originally posted by Karilla
Here are some quotes to convince you to actually read the article....

"For such clouds to have been created in the collapses of the towers a large portion of the concrete and gypsum in the buildings had to be turned almost instantly into dust of a very small particle size, in the

Just this weekend, we had a gasoline tanker crash on hwy 580 near the Bay Bridge in San Francisco.

It was carring 8600 gallons of gas. A fire started and guess what? The steel on the freeway weakened and the freeway collapsed.

The fire didn't melt the steel, it just weakened it. In my opinion this is directly comparable to the fires in the twin towers.

Of course, you could argue that this also was a controled demolition but I don't think you'd have many believers.

FreewayCollapse

Wildbob,

Check out this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Industrial grade tungsten steel will begin to liquify or melt at 2400 degrees FH. Jetliner fuel only burns at 1800 degrees tops. Problem right? Wrong!

First off, no ones knows what temperature the area surrounding the impact points of the twin towers were really burning at. There were other combustionable materials involved besides jet fuel that may have kicked up the temp, we just don’t know. No experiments or similar situations are on record to prove it one way or the other.

What we do know is that this type of steel weakens by 50% at only 1200 degrees. So even if the building frame didn’t melt, it’s not a stretch to believe it could weaken enough to collapse even if the temp was 1800.

Originally posted by iandavis
First off, no ones knows what temperature the area surrounding the impact points of the twin towers were really burning at. There were other combustionable materials involved besides jet fuel that may have kicked up the temp, we just don’t know. No experiments or similar situations are on record to prove it one way or the other.

But the North tower survived a 3 hour fire back in 1975 without any damage to the steel. So how can a fire that burns less then 1 hour cause a global collapse and molten steel in the basement ?

Originally posted by iandavis
First off, no ones knows what temperature the area surrounding the impact points of the twin towers were really burning at. There were other combustionable materials involved besides jet fuel that may have kicked up the temp, we just don’t know. No experiments or similar situations are on record to prove it one way or the other.

I suggest reading the NIST report. They tested samples of steel (at the impact floors) and found that only one had gotten hotter than 250 C.

What we do know is that this type of steel weakens by 50% at only 1200 degrees. So even if the building frame didn’t melt, it’s not a stretch to believe it could weaken enough to collapse even if the temp was 1800.

The melting point of aluminum is 1220 F. If the steel got to 1200, then we would have seen the aluminum facade either glowing a bright red or melting. None of which was observed.