26-strory bldg engulfed in flames - no collapse

Originally posted by defcon5
Did a 767 run into it at the same time and sever half its pilings?
Was it built as a shallow truss building with no pilings in areas due to a generator being underneath it?
No…& No…
I guess it’s not the same thing then.

Excuses, excuses.

It amazes me how it's A-OK for debunkers to compare an asphalt covered overpass to steel buildings, but we can't compare a steel building to another steel building. It boggles my mind.

reply to post by mortje


I have never seen the fire department say anything of the like; there were beams all over the place in the debris after the collapse. The only thing I have seen that sounds remotely like your statement is that the fire department stated that the fire weakened the metal in some of the beams causing them to give way, causing a chain reaction in other beams. I am also sure that there was additional heat from the impact and the forces acting on the building. All that energy did not just disappear, basic law of physics, it had to be translated into other forms with an equal amount to the inertia of the aircraft and explosion. Energy translates into light, heat and sound energy. Then you also have the potential energy of the upper stories, that later caused the collapse, all that pent up energy had to be released in some from and much of it had to have been through heat.

Originally posted by defcon5
Also it’s a truth movement untruth, that there have not been truss structure collapses due to fire. Simply do a search on google and you should find a number of them.

It is not. Try and find a global collapse due to fire. Even piss-poor built structures arrest a total collapse. Were the towers substandard than piss-poor?

reply to post by Griff


If you are reefing to the Detroit crash, that was a comparison of the way an aircraft reacts to going through a hardened set of pilings similar to the Pentagon, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the WTC. The two aircraft were different, the two structures were different, and the two situations were different. The Detroit crash was very similar to the Pentagon crash in several aspects. Both were narrow-body aircraft, both were low altitude crashes, both went through hardened pilings that were not supporting a load like the WTC was, just to name a few.

You wish to compare apples to oranges, while I was comparing apples to apples. Exactly how far back did you have to dig to even find those posts as I have not brought that up in years?

Originally posted by defcon5
You all going to apologize to the rest of us who had to listen and argue this crap for the last eight years?

No one has put a gun to your head and forced you to post here or anywhere else.

You all going to give back the money you made selling books, DVD’s, website space?

Are you going to give any of that government money back? You know...my tax dollars?

Is Guilliani?

[edit on 1/22/2009 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff


There have been multiple truss structure fires where the buildings have collapsed. Do the search yourself, I have other things to take care of this morning.

reply to post by defcon5


Maybe I'm just ignorant, but do you have pictures that show those beams everywhere? I've just seen a few where you have the solid beams sticking out at ground level.
Still wonder about those molten pools of metal, the impact of a plane can not account for that, whatever happens. Temperature doesn't instantly rise to a few thousand degrees because of a blow. Even if it did, to melt all that metal those few thousand degrees should have probably been 'available' for a few hours. Not the instant it hit the building, or the 45 minutes of a oxygen starved fire.

Originally posted by Griff
No one has put a gun to your head and forced you to post here or anywhere else.

I have to have my senses assaulted by this 911 stuff every time I hit the “Recent Posts” button.

Originally posted by Griff
Are you going to give any of that government money back? You know...may tax dollars?

First, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Secondly, why would I have to give back money I have not received, unlike the truthers out there that have made a living off this stuff.

Originally posted by defcon5
Because of its height the World Trade Center was actually weaker overall then many other shorter buildings that have to hold less stress.

I'd like to know where you pulled that logic out of. And who are you going to hold accountable for constructing such a weak building?

reply to post by mortje


First thing, its truthers untruth that aircraft cannot burn at a high enough temperature to melt metal. I have seen an aircraft fire first hand, and there is stuff in there that literally melted the top of the plane down below the seats. That fire was caused by fuel from the wing tank of another plane that stuck the aircraft in the fog. I don’t recall the flight number but it was a DTW NW DC-9 and it was hit by a DTW NW B727, date was around winter of 1990.

Besides the aircraft fuel, there were lots of other things in that tower to burn. Now add the hole in the side of the building, which would allow for massive amounts of wind to enter the structure, thereby creating a huge blast furnace and stoking the fire. Anyone who has been standing next to a skyscraper knows how they catch and magnify the wind. The idea that normal fire, when stoked up by air cannot melt metal is ridicules, as that is exactly how blacksmiths have shaped metal for centuries.

Now add the heat from the kinetic energy of the impact, severed load bearing structural elements, and the friction that must have been grinding down on the remaining structural elements, and it could not hold long term.

Originally posted by defcon5
If you hit a steel column with a couple hundred tons of aircraft grade aluminum traveling at close to 500knts, do you honestly think its going to stay in one piece or sever in half?

If you look closely we can see that the steel columns didn't sever from the plane impact. The welds did. Thus pushing those steel columns forward into the building. The plane didn't "slice through the steel", it sheared the welds in those areas and that's why we get a "cut-out" of the planes in those buildings.

Also to note: The welds didn't hold up too well in the collapses either.

Subpar construction? Possibly, IMO.

reply to post by Griff


That is perfect logic.
For example: why were wooden ships only able to reach a certain length? It was not because they were built any weaker; in fact, they were built stronger. However, when you start reaching engineering extremes, you start pushing the limits of the material you have to build with. For example: a 100-foot steel beam bearing a load is going to be weaker then a 10-foot steel beam bearing the same load. The more extreme you get with the material the more load that an equal amount of force exerts on it.

Basic physics again, if you have a 100-foot lever you can lift more then with a 10-foot lever because the extra distance amplifies the force of your weight.


[edit on 1/22/2009 by defcon5]

reply to post by defcon5


For one thing: I have no idea what Detroit crash you are referring to. Actually, now I'm curious, could you post a link?

Second thing: I was referring to the San Fran overpass that collapsed due to thermal expansion of the steel breaking the expansion joints. No plane was involved in this crash. Just a truck full of gas.

Originally posted by defcon5
There have been multiple truss structure fires where the buildings have collapsed. Do the search yourself, I have other things to take care of this morning.

Partial collapse, yes.
Full-on global collapse, no.

reply to post by Griff

Here:
NW 255
NW 1482
I have to finish up here at work so I don’t have time to search for pictures.

Here I did quickly find one pic:
NW 1482 Pic

For how long was that plane on fire?

45 minutes seems a short time to melt all of that.
The video's and pictures don't show a raging fire inside the building. You even have pictures of people standing right next to the entry hole of the plane.

Also,

Planes consist mostly out of aluminium, melting point 660.32 °C.

Steel however has a melting point of about 1500 °C. Once again, how do we get those pools of metal?

Read this.

You can of course dismiss it for being bull#, but in this model he exaggerated everything to see if it was even possible. It was not.

reply to post by mortje


Aircraft aluminum is not aluminum like you have on small aircraft, or on your house. It is pretty rugged, though if you push on it between spars it is fairly pliable and you can put a hole in it fairly easily with a sharp piece of equipment. The stuff that I used to see on the aircraft around the door, on patches and such was anywhere from ¼ inch to ½ inch think, and it appeared to be composite of some type (there are layers to it). I am not even going to speculate at its exact composition. The stuff on slats, and such was different then the stuff on the body, at the very least in thickness. The supposedly titanium engines, are not anywhere near as indestructible as some would have you believe, and titanium is actually more prone to breakage then even steel is. For example I have a steel and titanium dive knife, the titanium one cannot be used for prying without fear of snapping it in half.

I have read that document in the past, and I have some serious issues with it. His estimates on the fuel load are way off reality, and there is a reason for that. Early morning flights are ballast fueled on the night before to keep them from twisting in the chalks during their stay on the ground. This also helps with turn times throughout the day, as you start off with a full plane, and top off the load as you burn it off. That way they never have to spend hours refueling unless they go on an extended hop. Those were early morning RON flights, which means that they were loaded down with fuel, not near empty as he claims. He is claiming 3500 gallons of fuel, when those flights most likely had more like 20,000 gallons of fuel on them. Heck just the normal uplift that all pilots ask for is 2000+ lbs of fuel in addition for taxing and running APU’s. Fuel load on a DC-9 is 9000lbs per wing, which is around 3000 gallons… That is nowhere near enough gas for a widebody aircraft. That is a MAJOR discrepancy, and has been pointed out before. Of course the owner of that site will not change his slanted information because it blows his theory to pieces. I am not even going to be bothered with the rest of his site as his fuel load is so far off.

reply to post by mortje

That plane was melted in the time it took for the fire department to get to the aircraft, get out the people, and put out the fire. It was pretty quick as 8 people were killed by either the fire or the smoke. The pictures were obviously taken after the fire, when the aircraft was towed to the Ramp, that picture is exactly how the aircraft was when I saw it right down to the forklift sitting next to it. I was landing at the airport when that occurred, and saw it about an hour after it had happened. My flight time was so close to the time that this accident occurred, on the same airline, and the same type of aircraft, that when I called my family & work everyone was freaking out that it might have my flight.