Originally posted by truthseeka
Boy, where do I start, Howard??
30 floors can overtake 80 floors? Inertia just took over? Yeah, I know, you're right. Makes sense that these buildings would be designed to
collapse if only a small portion of them were damaged.
Well unfortunately, that may very well be the case. Not that it was deliberate, but it has become increasingly clear that the potential for a
catastrophic failure was inherent in the design of the towers. The tower design was innovative and pushed the envelope for high rise structures. In
retrospect, many of the innovative features, a small central core area, large open span floor plans without intermediate columns, lightweight
materials and gypsum board (drywall) core walls, etc. may not have been such a good idea after all.
Originally posted by truthseeka
I love how you called me ignorant and stupid without providing any "enlightened" thoughts on the whole fuel fire thing.
Well if you have been following any of the myriad of threads on this topic, you will know that I have, again and again. And I apologize you are not
stupid. I do think that you are credulous and have been misled. I also do not think that you understand the concept of heat energy and temperature.
I am tired of going over this over and over again, so I wont.
Originally posted by truthseeka
Why don't you type in "jet fuel fire temperature" at Google? Better yet, consider the temp at which diesel fuel combusts, a mere 350 degrees
Fahrenheit. I can't find the temp for jet fuel, but when I will, I'll post it.
here you go please note that they don't list a temperature but that they give the
value for the heat of combustion in
joules. When you understand the relationship between heat and temperature, you will realize that there the
statement:
"diesel fuel combusts, a mere 350 degrees Fahrenheit," makes no sense whatsoever.
Educate yourself or remain willfully ignorant.
Originally posted by truthseeka
I don't know why I'm considering this anyway when most of it combusted outside of the building. Again, you missed the invisible
fireball.
The invisible fireball?????
Not all of the fuel burned outside the building. At most, half of it did, that still leaves an enormous amount still inside the structure.
Originally posted by truthseeka
According to who you ask, steel melts at 2500-2800 degrees Fahrenheit, either way a long ways from diesel or jet fuel.
Before, I said that I did not think that you were stupid, here, I think you are being deliberately obtuse.
You know as well as I do, since it has been posted here on this site (as well as on many many others)
numerous times that it isn't necessary
to heat steel all the way up to its melting point to cause a structural failure. Steel looses up to 60 % of its tensile strength at around 600
degrees C (about 1112 degrees F), which is well within the temperature range of even an ordinary office fire, let alone one with the added fuel load
of a couple thousand gallons of kerosene!!!
But hey, those fires were that hot, weren't they? That's why all you saw was smoke in the buildings, right? The fire in the Madrid
building, a blazing inferno, wasn't hotter than those at the WTC buildings, right??
Actually they were probably both about the same temperature in the hottest parts of the fire. The difference is simply the scale. You simply do not
appreciate just how big the floor plan of the WTC towers were. From the pictures, I would estimate that the individual floors of the Windsor Tower
were probably a quarter of the size of the WTC floors
The eyewitnesses from the towers who talked about walking around AFTER experiencing heat in the building for a FEW MINUTES are nuts, too, huh?
How can anyone walk around in a building where fires are raging at temperatures over 2500 degrees Fahrenheit? Looks like they should have auditioned
for the part of the human torch in the Fantastic 4.
I take it back, maybe you are stupid.
[edit on 25-2-2005 by HowardRoark]
Do you know what a scuttlebut term means in the Navy? 
