For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

a reply to: Limbo

How can a jet fuel fire heat steel as hot as this?

Here is a link to my post on page 1, where I linked to the flame temperature of jet fuel and the melting point of carbon steel.
Kerosene burns at temperatures that are 1000 degrees F above the melting point of carbon steel.

Even wooden buildings burning can develop temperatures capable of causing steel beams to deform under little more load than their own weight. There are photos available of them if you search the internet.

It has all been covered before in previous 911 threads.
But as you can see in this thread, when you show that beams can collapse when heated, then the goalposts change and the steel ends up vaporized, and we start into discussions about how fast the buildings collapsed.

Sooner or later, we will see someone posting about how there were no airplanes at all, they were just holograms.

Then we will hear about the particle beam weapons that were used to destroy the buildings.

a reply to: gladtobehere

In an uncontrolled environment, jet fuel burns off very quickly.

Not if it ignites available fuel, like all the plastic office furniture, carpets, partitions, computers, etc., fed by winds aloft, thru slits in the office building floors with all the windows blown out: inward rushing air (like in a Venturi) drawn in like in a puddling furnace, sustained for one hour...

you are only considering one factor at a time. All must be added up dynamically. The weakening of the structure by impact, then unchecked fire raising temperatures inside the structure for an hour, begins to weaken the truss structure with all the foam protection blown off, just enough to initiate collapse of one floor...

Nothing melts, just weakens until it 'gives'. You'll note in the images below that there is no forced air fan, the fire convects heat up and out, the resulting increase in wind velocity over the metal to be melted is sufficient to raise the temperature hi enough (over time) to melt or "Puddle" the "Charge" . Same thing happens on a grander scale in a firestorm. Or an acre of shredded plastic office furniture soaked with jet fuel.

images of puddling furnaces

a reply to: butcherguy

Sooner or later, we will see someone posting about how there were no airplanes at all, they were just holograms.

Then we will hear about the particle beam weapons that were used to destroy the buildings.

Then be bombarded with BS about how the Whole Universe is just a simulation, lulz.

Make believe is much easier than dealing with the real world. Ever known anyone that disassociates when you talk to them? They close their eyes, plug their ears and go "lalalalalalal".

This is the behavior of children.

a reply to: Limbo

Also, the steel has been heated locally in a blast furnace, can this happen in a building and we get hotter temperatures?

Yes air rising through the elevator shaft(s).

Also, I'd ask if there is any evidence of those beams being melted and deformed due to softening of steel?

Yes google images of 911 steel beams.

Also, were all the beams throughout the building melred?

No and they didn't need to be.
The steel was designed to resist loading in specific direction(s).
Example:
A screw driver shaft is usually round to resist rotational torque.
Pound that shaft into a thin but wide shaft and it will twist like a cork screw.

WTC used steel beams in the inner core.
They were designed for vertical loading.
Sever the exterior floor connections and the load becomes rotational torque on the inner core connections.
Those beams twist. That twist is transferred to the vertical elements of the core.
They twist and buckle too.
Floor after floor.

a reply to: intrptr

you are only considering one factor at a time. All must be added up dynamically. The weakening of the structure by impact, then unchecked fire raising temperatures inside the structure for an hour, begins to weaken the truss structure with all the foam protection blown off, just enough to initiate collapse of one floor...

If they have the nerve they could use a paper match to get a needle to glow orange.
But that would throw a wrench into their conspiracy.

I think there's a point of no return on these bogus claims - once you've been saying, "no wreckage at the Pentagon" for years, and then someone shows you all the wreckage, you have two choices:

1. Admit you've been wrong the whole time.
2. Double-down on it, because you were so vocal about how true it was, and other people will continue to say it with you if you keep going.


Number 2 seems to win almost 100% of the time.


See also:

Free fall collapse
Molten steel
Hijackers are still alive
ad infinitum

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: intrptr

you are only considering one factor at a time. All must be added up dynamically. The weakening of the structure by impact, then unchecked fire raising temperatures inside the structure for an hour, begins to weaken the truss structure with all the foam protection blown off, just enough to initiate collapse of one floor...

If they have the nerve they could use a paper match to get a needle to glow orange.
But that would throw a wrench into their conspiracy.

The conspiracy is to keep everyones head buried in the rubble instead of why this happened , what proceeded from it, and where we are today.

Whoops, suckered once again.

Can't wait till they anounce the false flag that precedes the total destruction of North Korea. I am sure it will be blasted from the speakers in surround sound: WMD, EVIL DICTATORS, REGIME CHANGE, HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION.
Americans are the Dumbest Down people on the planet.

Serious question:

Just how much of the jet fuel was burned in the initial explosion? Has that question been calculated and answered definitively?


Would there be enough left to burn so long that it weakened a steel structure designed to take multiple airplane strikes?

Lots of people acting like they think they know, but you all sit around and argue with and ridicule each other so much that you'll never make any progress with it.

Also, jet fuel is a liquid, gravity is going to pull it down, would the natural absorptive qualities of the building structure hold enough jet fuel to be able to burn hot enough to melt the steel?

I've studied civil engineering and structural engineering, the construction of the twin towers was quite unique and different from a lot of other skyscrapers.
Not reinforced concrete like a lot of others but a steel outer shell held together with much thinner steel floor trusses. The molten metal was aluminium from the planes possibly. Thousands of pounds of burning jet fuel can create very high temperatures in a confined space.
Once steel goes red hot it can bend much easier and loses most of it's structural strength. The floor trusses holding up the floors were not super strong and only designed for the load of one floor.
They had fire protection insulation on them but that was never designed for a jet fuel fire and that only buys some time.
Once the floor trusses heated up enough to lose strength the first floor collapsed. Floors below could not take the impact or extra load so collapsed also. With the floor trusses pulling down the outer skin, it also began to collapse. Once this process started the whole building came down under it's own weight.
The collapse is totally consistent with the unique construction of the building. The weak point of the floor trusses was the main cause. My 2c.

originally posted by: canuckster
Serious question:

Just how much of the jet fuel was burned in the initial explosion? Has that question been calculated and answered definitively?


Would there be enough left to burn so long that it weakened a steel structure designed to take multiple airplane strikes?

Lots of people acting like they think they know, but you all sit around and argue with and ridicule each other so much that you'll never make any progress with it.

Also, jet fuel is a liquid, gravity is going to pull it down, would the natural absorptive qualities of the building structure hold enough jet fuel to be able to burn hot enough to melt the steel?

Good questions.

And while we're at it: Here we are at page 15, and still, nobody seems to know exactly what "Moronic-Jet-Fuel", is?

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
[

How could all of the building’s 47 core columns fail uniformly given that the destruction wasn’t symmetrical when it started?

They didn't.

If the columns failed uniformly the top would not of tilted.

Are you going to explain to us how explosives stopped the rotation and kept the top from toppling over ?

Yes they did, after the tilt. It started asymmetrical (tilting), then all the resistance went poof, no more.
At that point all the columns fail equally and perfect all the way down, very quick!

Again, the collapse was way to quick with all the mass amounts of resistance below, way to quick!

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

Again, the collapse was way to quick with all the mass amounts of resistance below, way to quick!

Until you've demonstrated some calculations regarding the dynamic force involved, and how it should not have overcome the resistance, you are merely expressing personal incredulity, which is:

"My argument against it is that I don't believe it."

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Once the floors start failing and the top part of the building falls on the rest of it, the whole thing comes down like a house of cards.
The massive force of thousands of tons of steel and concrete falling on the relatively weak floor trusses is game over. With the floor trusses pulling on the outer skin and no longer bracing it the whole thing comes down, like dominos.
At least that's the non conspiracy collapse but I don't mind conspiracy theories.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
This has probably been posted before - I've no idea what to search for - and it deserves to be posted again.

I'm a solid 911 questioner, finding few satisfying answers, but here is a video that provides one answer to one question and in a truly delightful way:

This guy is the bomb.

Happy Friday

jesus.....hey goober....in your video, that one small 7" to 8" section that was 300 degrees hotter than burning fuel, and white hot...yeah that bends, but, how about 18 inches up where your gloved hand is, did that lose integrity?....was it still solid enough to support the anvil?.....if you could put another anvil up where your hand is and it was somehow balanced on the end, would the anvil come "straight down" in freefall rate crushing the whole bar?...........or...........when it hit "THE COOLER STEEL PART" would it stop and fall to the side?......the video CLEARLY DEMOSTRATED that even the short piece of steel you had, was dramatically cooler where the gloved hand was, or it would have set the glove on fire......

originally posted by: blackaspirin

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

Again, the collapse was way to quick with all the mass amounts of resistance below, way to quick!

Until you've demonstrated some calculations regarding the dynamic force involved, and how it should not have overcome the resistance, you are merely expressing personal incredulity, which is:

"My argument against it is that I don't believe it."

The height of the South Tower is 1,362 feet. Calculated that from that height, free fall in a vacuum (absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of free fall in a vacuum.

This speed is impossible if each of the floors had to fail individually.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

You inadvertently addressed your own misunderstanding - 14 seconds is not even close to free-fall.

You and I are both laypersons - if you doubt the calculations done that support a global collapse because of failure at the impact zones, then you need to find someone qualified to either help you revise them, or explain to you why they're valid.

But your personal incredulity counts for nothing. As I had told you earlier, watch video of the collapse of the Twin Towers. At the moment of failure, when the upper mass falls through the impact zone and hits the lower mass, PICK A FLOOR DOWN THE BUILDING AND FOCUS ON IT.

As the mass above is crashing down, is the floor you're focusing on ALREADY IN MOTION? (answer: no)

You cannot claim that 'all the support had been removed', because all of the floors below the collapse point are still intact. They stay this way until the mass reaches them, at which point they are crushed, and become part of the falling mass. This occurs all the way down the building.

It's not hard to understand.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

At that point all the columns fail equally and perfect all the way down, very quick!

No columns failed after collapse initiation. It was the truss seat connections that failed after that.

This is a truss seat.



They are located here.



They have a load strength of 94,000 lbs. if that load is exceeded they fail. When the floors above fell on the floor below it exceeded the strength of the truss seats and they failed.

Here is an example of a column that shows where the truss seat was sheared off.



And here is an example of a truss with the sheared off truss seat still attached.



Go and look for your self at the exterior columns photographed at ground zero. They all have damaged or missing truss seats.

This is the weak point that brought the buildings down.

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Once the floors start failing and the top part of the building falls on the rest of it, the whole thing comes down like a house of cards.
The massive force of thousands of tons of steel and concrete falling on the relatively weak floor trusses is game over. With the floor trusses pulling on the outer skin and no longer bracing it the whole thing comes down, like dominos.
At least that's the non conspiracy collapse but I don't mind conspiracy theories.

and yet, building 7 had NO jet fuel fire, nor did a plane hit it......that building also came down at close to free fall speed.
were there fires in building 7 ? of course, but not at the same high temperature spread out along an entire square-city-block-long building.....

a reply to: blackaspirin

10-14 seconds, it was closer to 10.

In a vacuum should be 9.2, zero resistance. You didn't read the post fully?

Pretty damn close.

In your theory, tower should have fallen in about 25 seconds. Big difference!

Get it?

a reply to: jimmyx

I admit I know very little about building 7 and couldn't answer any of that...

This seems to be the official line...

The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began.

After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.

"For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse."

www.popularmechanics.com...

Seems some multi story buildings are more vulnerable to fire than previously thought.