The Heat Problem

I used to believe the official story concerning 9/11, but two things changed my mind.

The Heat Problem-

"Let’s start with temperatures – 1,340° F. temperatures, recorded in thermal images of the surface
of the World Trade Center rubble pile a week after 9/11 by NASA’s AVIRIS equipment on
USGS overflights.3 Such temperatures cannot be achieved by oxygen-starved hydrocarbon fires.
Such fires burn at only 600 to 800° F.4 Remember, there was no fire on the top of the pile. The
source of this incredible heat was therefore below the surface of the rubble, where it must have
been far hotter than 1,340 degrees."

"Steel melts at about 2,850 degrees Fahrenheit, about twice the temperature of the World Trade
Center Tower 1 and 2 fires as estimated by NIST. So what melted the steel?"

wtc.nist.gov...

Now i am a certified welder, i melt steel and put it back together almost every day. People claiming "well the fires weren't hot enough to melt steel, but they weakened it enough so that it would collapse" is simply wrong for two reasons.

A) why has this not happened before or since, when fire damage has been greater than at wtc?

B) even if there was heat enough to weaken the steel, the tower's top would have fallen to the side at the weakest points; the undamaged steel would prevent the "pile driver" collapse that we saw, and near free fall velocities could not be reached.
The simple facts of temperatures:

"1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower."

911review.com...

Near Freefall Speeds-

i've already touched on this a little bit, alien scientist has a video series that covers this and the heat problems. i know they have been posted, but ill throw up some links to make the information more available.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

"The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest. The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building."

911research.wtc7.net...


never be afraid to change your mind, truth is what matters, and truth is what we search for here. if the evidence for the demolition of the towers can be explained away with logic and facts, i too will change my mind.

be polite, stick to facts, and search for truth.

edit: spelling errors




[edit on 20-3-2010 by Bob Sholtz]

I, too, work with steel and aluminum all day, every day. We cut them, weld them, shape them. You name it. Office fires have never brought a steel-structured highrise down, completely and totally, in history before 9/11 or after.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a39ae149b0f6.gif[/atsimg]


Controlled demolition companies use explosives for a reason. All support columns must be severed at the exact same time for the building to come straight down like both did in the image above. However, we're led to believe that fire did what only explosives have done in the past?

If I owned a controlled demolition company, I would be ecstatic at this new information. Imagine setting some office fires on a few floors and only having to pay a couple people to set those fires instead of having to spend the money to pay a large team to prep a building, and set the explosives. Not to mention the money it costs to purchase the explosives.

9/11 showed us that three times on one day in history, simple office fires have accomplished what only controlled demolitions have done before or after 9/11. I have a problem that.

Good thread.






[edit on 20-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]

There are so many 911 threads today that I am getting confused. I saw a video in one of them that showed the damage to the south side of building 7. The north side of building 7 looks relatively untouched. I have watched the video of the building falling several times and am struck by an odd fact. If the south side where damaged how is it possible that the building fell straight down on the west and east sides? The north side of the building was structurally intact. If the damage caused the building to collapse it should have leaned to the south (the weak side) and the north side would have been dragged down. It looks like the whole building free falls all at once. Any explanations?

reply to post by liveandletlive


NYPD reported from their helicopters that the north tower was leaning and collapse was imminent. Yet it also fell straight down.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Are you sure it fell straight down? As is being discussed in another thread here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can you clarify a statement you made for me? When you point out that “it takes explosive forces to eject 4 ton and heavier steel pieces sideways at 55 mph are you saying that this is why WTC7 was heavily damaged and eventually fell? I haven’t formed a definite opinion on what happened on 9-11 yet but there are things that don’t sit right with me and your statement is one of them. What actually causes a burning building to eject 4 ton and heavier steel pieces sideways at 55 mph?

the building mushroomed out as it fell.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

....the.... tower was leaning and collapse was imminent. Yet it also fell straight down.

Funny, this tower is leaning, and falls straight down, but doesn't topple over....




Of course, it wasn't hit somewhere near the top by a heavy jet, and there wasn't a lot of mass above that damaged point....in fact the total mass of that silo is miniscule in comparison....

Still, it doesn't topple over. (Oh, and it is 'blown' at the bottom, something not seen at the WTC Towers).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ooops, golly gee willickers, found another one:



[edit on 20 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Funny, this tower is leaning, and falls straight down, but doesn't topple over....

That building was not leaning before the explosives were detonated.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Of course, it wasn't hit somewhere near the top by a heavy jet, and there wasn't a lot of mass above that damaged point

There was only 13% to 15% of the total columns in the impact zones that were damaged. In other words, 85% of the structure was intact. Therefore, your comment here is irrelevant.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Oh, and it is 'blown' at the bottom, something not seen at the WTC Towers

It actually was seen at the WTC. Many choose to ignore the evidence because the evidence proves a conspiracy:

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Ooops, golly gee willickers

Yeah, this type of language doesn't add anything to the discussion and is just a waste of space and bandwidth.

"1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere

Your numbers are incorrect:

The Effects of Fire on Structural Systems

3 – Steel

The yield strength of steel is reduced to about half at 550 ºC. At 1000 ºC, the yield strength is 10 percent or less. Because of its high thermal conductivity, the temperature of unprotected internal steelwork normally will vary little from that of the fire. Structural steelwork is, therefore, usually insulated.

Apart from losing practically all of its load-bearing capacity, unprotected steelwork can undergo considerable expansion when sufficiently heated. The coefficient of expansion is 10-5 per degree Celsius. Young’s modulus does not decrease with temperature as rapidly as does yield strength.

Cold-worked reinforced bars, when heated, lose their strength more rapidly than do hot-rolled high-yield bars and mild-steel bars. The differences in properties are even more important after heating. The original yield stress is almost completely recovered on cooling from a temperature of 500 to 600 ºC for all bars but on cooling from 800 ºC, it is reduced by 30 percent for cold-worked bars and by 5 percent for hot-rolled bars.

The loss of strength for prestressing steels occurs at lower stressing temperatures than that for reinforcing bars. Cold-drawn and heat-treated steels lose a part of their strength permanently when heated to temperatures in excess of about 300 ºC and 400 ºC, respectively.

This is why when vehicles catch on fire under bridges, the bridge often has to be rebuilt. I have seen this happen multiple times in my life. The fire weakens both the cement and the steel in the bridge and it can no longer hold the weight that its required to.


Edit:
NVM... I see your link now, you should learn to use the ex tags for external quotes.

[edit on 3/20/2010 by defcon5]

reply to post by defcon5

If what you're saying is true, the tops of the buildings would have toppled off at an angle, leaving the rest intact, and they would have been rebuilt by now, with some sort of small, tasteful memorial in the giftshop. Instead, 80% of the steel and concrete was reduced to dust in a few seconds, while paper and aluminum was unaffected. How do you explain that?

Originally posted by defcon5
Your numbers are incorrect:

Not so much:


Melting point of iron: 1535°C or 2795°F

Melting point of structural steel: 1482°C or 2700°F

Max temperature of a hydrocarbon fire: ~1100°C or ~2012°F


In the future, it would be prudent to indicate which numbers were wrong as your claim leads one to believe that they were all wrong. My quick search showed that the hydrocarbon numbers were off, but the rest were accurate enough.






[edit on 20-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Ok, Wiki Answers is not a valid source like the one I provided.
Secondly, Melting point is not the point at which metals lose their strength, it’s the point at which they become molten. Steel can be heated to a weakened state using conventional means, if not then you better travel back in time and tell the old blacksmiths that they were defying the laws of physics.

My understanding is that the towers fell basically because planes flew into them defeating the myriad of overlapping and redundant structural safety factors built into every high rise design. If this is true we should really revisit the safety of all buildings today. To think thousands of buildings are standing at such a risk is frightening. Catch a couple of floors of a building on fire and wham the building falls killing everyone. Wait a minute, didnt I hear that 911 was the only time that buildings fell due to fire. Wonder if thats true?

reply to post by warpcrafter

Structures can certainly fail straight down, just look at how bridges have pancaked from vehicle fires or earthquakes. Now stack up 100 of those expressway bridges and have them start failing one after the next with the rest of the weight of the stack coming down on each progressive level. If what you were saying was correct, then this should not have fallen this way:
earthquake.usgs.gov...
It should have fallen to the side since that was the area of least resistance.

Originally posted by liveandletlive
Catch a couple of floors of a building on fire and wham the building falls killing everyone.

Uhm….
You mean “catch a couple of floors of a building on fire after cutting numerous support columns via the collision, and then having an explosion with a force of between 717 & 1.9 kilotons of TNT… and wham the building falls killing everyone.”

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by liveandletlive
Catch a couple of floors of a building on fire and wham the building falls killing everyone.

Uhm….
You mean “catch a couple of floors of a building on fire after cutting numerous support columns via the collision, and then having an explosion with a force of between 717 & 1.9 kilotons of TNT… and wham the building falls killing everyone.”

So is it fair to say that if I went a few floors below the top of a 100 story building and set charges at the main structural supporting columns on that floor and detonated the charges that a cascading effect would be created which would collapse the entire building?

Originally posted by defcon5
Ok, Wiki Answers is not a valid source like the one I provided.

I changed the source, but it's still the same numbers.

Originally posted by defcon5
Melting point is not the point at which metals lose their strength, it’s the point at which they become molten.

Exactly. And we are talking about the molten steel found at the WTC. Since kerosene and normal office fires do not melt steel, then some other incendiary had to have been present.

Visit my thread below for more information:

NIST: Incompetent or Deliberately Covering Up Evidence of Molten Steel?





[edit on 20-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by liveandletlive
So is it fair to say that if I went a few floors below the top of a 100 story building and set charges at the main structural supporting columns on that floor and detonated the charges that a cascading effect would be created which would collapse the entire building?

It was more then a few floors that were suddenly dropped on the floor below it. Would you expect a weakened structure to support such an amount of weight suddenly being dropped on it?

You know I always get a chuckle out of the truth movement videos where folks show solid blocks and say that the towers could not fall through the path of highest resistance. In reality its more like a house of cards, and you bet that if you suddenly removed the middle layer of cards from the tower that they would fall in the exact same manner, straight down into their own footprint.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Exactly. And we are talking about the molten steel found at the WTC. Since kerosene and normal office fires do not melt steel, then some other incendiary had to have been present.

The entire structure did not turn into molten metal however, but there might have been some found. The frictional heat of the metal collapsing itself could have created some. Similar to when you keep bending a coat hanger back and fourth until its hot enough to burn skin.

Originally posted by defcon5
Similar to when you keep bending a coat hanger back and fourth until its hot enough to burn skin.

Those types of coat hangers are also made out of steel. I don't recall one ever melting from bending it until it breaks. Getting hot enough to burn skin and melting are two totally different things. Only explosives/incendiaries could have produced the molten steel found at the WTC. I'm pretty sure bending a steel beam until it breaks won't make it melt. Thanks for the giggle though.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Ok, and the friction that you generate with the small amount of pressure your muscles exert is miniscule compared to the thousands of tons of weight that was exerted on the towers metal frame. So if you can get it hot enough to burn, imagine how much more friction that amount of weight could generate.

Thanks for the giggle though.

Save your sarcastic nonsense for someone who cares…