I'm pretty sure this building is going to collapse - Sharjah Skyscraper!

reply to post by butcherguy


Who cares about the temp of jet fuel when a building not hit by a plane falls at freefall with normal fire temps?
Building 7 anyone?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

Not even a controlled demolition STARTS falling at full speed. So you start TIMING things after it gets underway.

Here on planet earth everything falls the same way. "Full speed" = terminal velocity. Nothing on 9/11 start falling at terminal velocity. And on controlled demolitions they don't time anything. And then you wonder why there's no new investigation.

ONCE AGAIN -- if you had WATCHED the video [here's that link again if you are perfectly ready CLICK HERE DUMMY!!! ].... the man mentions that the NIST started counting about 2 seconds BEFORE anything started falling. They started counting when the tower slumped but the top of the roof hadn't moved. If you start the count when the top of the roof MOVES DOWN -- for nearly 3 seconds the building falls as if it were having no resistance from the floors below -- that's full speed here on planet earth.

Regardless of when you start or stop counting -- there is a period of time that they show the rate of fall being free-fall. That's exactly what happens in a controlled demolition -- they ALSO don't start equalling free-fall for about the first second (depending on HOW the charges are set). A building falling without resistance is a building that has supports being removed BEFORE the debris hits or simultaneous with it. A "pancake collapse" would go "whomp, whomp, whomp" meaning that each floor would slow down the preceding debris and then pick up speed again. A Pancake collapse on Building's 1 and 2 should have taken at least 50 seconds up to two minutes to fall.

I don't wonder AT ALL why there was no investigation for 4 years. The Bush administration did a thorough job of NOT investigating, and NOT getting aide to the Katrina victims and NOT finding WMDs to justify his Oil industry wars for profit.

This is the last time I'm going to reply to anything but a SERIOUS question -- if you can't be bothered to listen to someone - - you shouldn't be replying to them.

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Who cares about the temp of jet fuel when a building not hit by a plane falls at freefall with normal fire temps?
Building 7 anyone?

Apparently the people who insist on repeating the false claim that jet fuel can not burn at temperatures that will melt steel.

You obviously care about Building 7 more than I do, but please feel free to go on about it. I wouldn't think of telling you that no one cares about it.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

Those are just claims by you. Pretty vague I might add.

Dick Cheny had a website????? That's news to me. What was it's domain name?

Just go away,.. you aren't serious about anything -- just a troll. I didn't have time to link to it this afternoon and NOW, I'm pretty sure NONE of the deniers here today are going to be influenced one bit by anything said. Useful fools or intentional ones -- I'm not interested.

If you are a fan of Dick Cheney -- you are in luck. This war criminal will never see justice before the heart he got from someone of value quits working. It doesn't matter what anyone on this blog says -- it doesn't matter what the truth is.

Oh, and here is a LINK or maybe THIS ONE -- "That's News to Me." duhhhhh,... I'm sure everything is NEWS to the people who are continuously surprised about the state of the world.

I seriously can't respect you guys if you don't BOTHER to check before you call someone a fool.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Who cares about the temp of jet fuel when a building not hit by a plane falls at freefall with normal fire temps?
Building 7 anyone?

Apparently the people who insist on repeating the false claim that jet fuel can not burn at temperatures that will melt steel.

You obviously care about Building 7 more than I do, but please feel free to go on about it. I wouldn't think of telling you that no one cares about it.

You can stick an I-Beam in a vat of Jet Fuel and not even soften it -- even burning it with pure oxygen. In a building -- the heat load needs to become great enough for steel to slump.

ONCE AGAIN, here is the temp for burning jet fuel; 260-315 °C (500-599 °F) -- that's like my oven, the steel plating can handle the oven being on ALL DAY at 500 degrees.
Carbon Steel melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F) LINK
I believe the going doctrine is that it won't SLUMP until it is in a temperature at LEAST half-way to its melting point -- but don't quote me on that, I can't spend all day researching this stuff.

THIS ARTICLE LINK does the math and says that it loses 90% strength at 1,500-1,700° F -- the PEAK temperature based on THERMAL IMAGING from satellites of the fire at the WTC never got over 1,100 degrees.

Let's be charitable and say that we need 1200°F. An office fire reaches in excess of 800°F -- which is WAY ABOVE the burning temp of jet fuel, so mentioning this MAGIC JET FUEL isn't going to impress anyone who deals with fires -- it isn't that much hotter than burning wood but many combustibles in your home and office burn hotter than kerosene. We also have to consider HEAT LOAD -- which means at lower temperatures than melting point -- it takes TIME to weaken the metal. Didn't we just have a massive fire in Darfur NOT take down a skyscraper? How many examples of steel structures NOT FALLING do we need?

>> How long have you guys been throwing stones at this concept that there was NO WAY IN HELL the fires were hot enough to weaken the metal supports at the WTC and NOT KNOWN the basics?

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Who cares about the temp of jet fuel when a building not hit by a plane falls at freefall with normal fire temps?
Building 7 anyone?

Apparently the people who insist on repeating the false claim that jet fuel can not burn at temperatures that will melt steel.

You obviously care about Building 7 more than I do, but please feel free to go on about it. I wouldn't think of telling you that no one cares about it.

How do you you not care about building 7??? Why would you put so much effort into fuel temps and steel melting if all it takes for trade centers to fall at freefall speed is normal temp fire??
I'm not telling you anything, I'm asking.

Ignore the twin towers for a minute and figure out building 7. They are all connected. They all fell exactly the same, yet not all hurt the same way.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

The link that I posted from Stanford says it burns at a much higher temperature than you admit to. Do you think that they are wrong.

I know personally that fuels even less volatile than jet fuel will burn at temperatures high enough to melt steel. How do you think they melted steel when it was invented 4,000 years ago? They burned fuels. Before coal was readily available, they used charcoal.

I burn charcoal in my BBQ grill, it's steel and it doesn't melt!
Some people can't grasp it, I guess.

reply to post by SunnyDee

How do you you not care about building 7???

I didn't say that I didn't care.

Did I?

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Who cares about the temp of jet fuel when a building not hit by a plane falls at freefall with normal fire temps?
Building 7 anyone?

I understand how the CASUAL person who checked on 9/11 conspiracy sites a few times and saw "holograms" or death beams, is kind of rolling his (her) eyes at the "9/11 Truth Movement" -- I really do. My brother is a very smart man, who thinks I'm a total fool and don't really research things. He's an older brother -- and that's just how they always dismiss their younger siblings. He doesn't remember all the times I've been right -- Hell, he even voted for Bush and told me with his "I'm working at a big company and our smart Tech guys said" kind of voice that the iPhone was going to flop. Now Apple makes more on that phone than most country's GDP.

So I'm OK with people who don't track the stuff that has never been answered.

... but I take issue with people who have been TOLD time and again about steel, and have ACTUALLY read a bit of the NIST report. People who are OK with some horizontal domino theory of support beams where 1 beam fails and 143 others go with it simultaneously.

It's been whack-a-mole all night. I've seen the same thing with Global Warming Deniers -- to this day, I STILL have to debunk the idea that Climatologists once stated we were in for an ice age. The same people who deny global warming keep saying the same things over and over.

>> The Deniers here are 2nd rate -- they keep stating comments about OTHER wild claims someone made, or forgetting what temp Steel needs to reach before it will start losing MORE than half it's strength -- and the WTC was built 3 to 4 times over standards.

It would be ONE THING for a healthy debate -- but to constantly deal with people who are NOT AWARE that the NIST admitted to a freefall collapse at WTC 7 is to deal with willful ignorance.

>> The MAN on the street has an excuse to be this ignorant -- but to be on a blog commenting on 9/11 a decade later and not having a clue -- we have to wonder about intent more than sanity.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

>> The MAN on the street has an excuse to be this ignorant -- but to be on a blog commenting on 9/11 a decade later and not having a clue -- we have to wonder about intent more than sanity.

When presented with evidence of as simple a thing as the combustion temperatures of a single fuel, and refusing to believe it, that IMO is a person that has less than a clue.

I did not say clueless, just less than a clue.

I wonder how an oil fire in one of the main engineering spaces melted steel deck plates and bulkheads on the USS Saratoga?

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

>> The MAN on the street has an excuse to be this ignorant -- but to be on a blog commenting on 9/11 a decade later and not having a clue -- we have to wonder about intent more than sanity.

I guess Butcher guy liked this part too, or not, but so true, so true.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

The link that I posted from Stanford says it burns at a much higher temperature than you admit to. Do you think that they are wrong.

I know personally that fuels even less volatile than jet fuel will burn at temperatures high enough to melt steel. How do you think they melted steel when it was invented 4,000 years ago? They burned fuels. Before coal was readily available, they used charcoal.

I burn charcoal in my BBQ grill, it's steel and it doesn't melt!
Some people can't grasp it, I guess.

Well FINALLY -- someone with a tiny shred of FACTs to deal with,... great!

Your Stanford study HERE is talking about INSIDE A JET ENGINE.

Now there are two variables you change inside a jet engine; air flow and pressure. Now the first is obvious -- the conditions are pretty much like a BLAST FURNACE -- only much more air to burn.

The 2nd might be a little less obvious -- but I'd say you at least TRIED. Have you noticed that when you spray an aerosol can -- anything with contents under pressure that instantly is allowed to expand (spray out and reduce pressure) that it gets COLD? That temperature drop has nothing to do with the volatility of the substance -- it's all about taking material under pressure and reducing the pressure -- the HEAT LOAD is spread out suddenly and that creates cooling. The compressor and Freon in your AC unit uses the same principle.

Take that in reverse -- take a burning substance and suddenly CRUSH the air its in and you can raise it's temperature MANY FACTORS above the original heat load.


>> If there had been a giant blast furnace at the WTC and someone had smacked it with a giant sledge hammer - you MIGHT get those 2,000 degree + temperatures -- HOWEVER, the heat gradient would spike, and not be long enough to melt steel. Unless you are continuously blasting air with fuel and pressurizing that with forces many times atmospheric levels -- it won't stay hot LONG ENOUGH.

In open air -- Jet Fuel is no hotter than a wood fire. I used to heat my cabin by Kerosene every winter -- and unless we used the blower (designed like a Jet Engine) -- it wasn't any hotter or more dangerous than a wood fire. Note that our Kerosene heater used standard sheet metal -- if it was a danger under the heat load of Kerosene (Jet Fuel by another name) -- it didn't seem to show any signs of fatigue even after 3 days of constant use.

But THANKS so much for at least throwing something new out there.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by SunnyDee

 

How do you you not care about building 7???

I didn't say that I didn't care.

Did I?

Well you said something to that effect....

You obviously care about Building 7 more than I do,

I'm sorry if I'm offending your senses. It seems like you are evading my line of discussion here though. So no actual thoughts on building 7, other than the above comment?

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

>> The MAN on the street has an excuse to be this ignorant -- but to be on a blog commenting on 9/11 a decade later and not having a clue -- we have to wonder about intent more than sanity.

I guess Butcher guy liked this part too, or not, but so true, so true.

To change the subject a little -- is that little hedge hog (in your ICON) an actual pet of yours? The babies are darn cute but is a hedge hog a good pet? Anyway -- cuteness overload. Those things didn't affect a guy like me before I had kids of my own, but now, sheesh, some kind of Genetic change went over me and I can't help myself.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

You totally disregard chimney effect.

How do shipboard oil fires melt steel deck plates and bulkheads when efforts are taken to keep air from entering the space?

How did they manufacture steel 4,000 years ago without jet engines to get temps high enough to melt steel?

Originally posted by SunnyDee

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by SunnyDee

 

How do you you not care about building 7???

I didn't say that I didn't care.

Did I?

Well you said something to that effect....

You obviously care about Building 7 more than I do,

I'm sorry if I'm offending your senses. It seems like you are evading my line of discussion here though. So no actual thoughts on building 7, other than the above comment?

That is something to look at in the truther psyche I guess. No attention to the truth.

What I said and what you blamed me for are very different. Same/different.... Some people have trouble with that.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


Not a pet, just like the pic, and like the little guy, I've been known to be cute, and a bit of a stinker all in one prickly package.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

>> The MAN on the street has an excuse to be this ignorant -- but to be on a blog commenting on 9/11 a decade later and not having a clue -- we have to wonder about intent more than sanity.

When presented with evidence of as simple a thing as the combustion temperatures of a single fuel, and refusing to believe it, that IMO is a person that has less than a clue.

I did not say clueless, just less than a clue.

I wonder how an oil fire in one of the main engineering spaces melted steel deck plates and bulkheads on the USS Saratoga?

edit on 1-5-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

OK - I just answered the comment about how a JET ENGINE is not like an office space....

... I'm not familiar with this fire on the Saratoga -- my OFF THE CUFF response would be that we can look at a few factors that are different;
1) You said OIL FIRE, but maybe this was fuel for a supersonic fighter jet -- the only thing I've been commenting on is the "jet fuel" in Commercial airplanes -- it's JUST LIKE KEROSENE only slightly SAFER.
2) There are a lot of things that burn and go "boom" on an aircraft carrier.
3) Deck Plating is not the same as an I-Beam support in a building.

The thing I have to wonder is; with all the VERY AVAILABLE DATA about structural steel and it's ability to WITHSTAND FIRES -- that's why we build with it, and the data available about kerosene -- why do you want to talk about fires on Military vessels where there are more variables and we have less experience talking about them?

You could have said; "Well explain why the O-Rings failed on the Columbia shuttle?" -- well actually, I figured that out in 2 minutes while I witnessed it in the Girls Dorm in College on the TV in the foyer. I remember seeing that flare on the side, and remembering it was below freezing that night - and when I noticed the place on the main fuel tank where this tragedy started I thought about that round rubber gasket that always falls out of my blender and seems to fail when I've had the ice sitting in it for too long. Sucks that I get no credit for calling it first...

Anyway -- Rocket science is USUALLY another way to end a conversation... and possibly "expert knowledge of military hazards" would only be slightly below that in it's ability to confuse people.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by SunnyDee

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by SunnyDee

 

How do you you not care about building 7???

I didn't say that I didn't care.

Did I?

Well you said something to that effect....

You obviously care about Building 7 more than I do,

I'm sorry if I'm offending your senses. It seems like you are evading my line of discussion here though. So no actual thoughts on building 7, other than the above comment?

That is something to look at in the truther psyche I guess. No attention to the truth.

What I said and what you blamed me for are very different. Same/different.... Some people have trouble with that.

So you are still evading and now detracting. I got ya. No problem.

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

Not a pet, just like the pic, and like the little guy, I've been known to be cute, and a bit of a stinker all in one prickly package.

I seriously wish I could change my handle -- but like a BAD TATTOO I'm stuck with it.

Basically, I took "Vitriol And Angst" -- it was after getting called a traitor every time I questioned the WAR, the Bush administration's ethics, or the allegations of a Torture Program. So I figured that if all I was getting from Conservatives on blogs was Vitriol and Angst -- like Halloween, I thought I'd just wear the mask. I'm not an angry person -- I just can't tolerate intolerance and evil.