Sept 11th..., page 2

Originally posted by astrocreep

Originally posted by Jakomo
Astrocreep: How long do you think it would take for jet fuel to melt a support strut? Not just one but all of them. It takes about 3000 degrees of constant, consistent heat to melt steel (like an acetylene torch), and kerosene only burns at around 1300. Plus, being a liquid, it burns away fairly quickly.

Your blast furnace analogy isn't particularly apt because it's consistent heat in a blast furnace.. A fuel-burning fire in a building isn't consistent, the oxygen supply is not uniform throughout the entire semi-demolished structure.

Metal Melting Points (Deg F)
mild steel 2730
wrought iron 2700-2900
stainless steel 2600
hard steel 2555
cast iron 2060-2200
copper 1985
red brass 1832
silver 1763
yellow brass 1706
aluminum alloy 865-1240
magnesium alloy 660-1200
lead 621
babbit 480

Jet fuel burns at a max of about 1300, like I said.

Even if it was hot enough to melt steel, it would have melted SOME struts, causing the WTC to TOPPLE, not to implode like a controlled demoliton. Check it on on google for yourself. There have been studies done that question the collapse of the WTC towers due to jet fuel burning. Like I said, it's all out there on the Net.

MrEisenhower: The US is famous for being a fairweather friend. Back in the 80's, Saddam Hussein was the Pentagon's golden boy. They funded him in his war with Iran (who was the lesser of two evils as they saw it).

Check out the "School of the Americas" in the US. It has singlehandedly trained hundreds of South and Central American despots and terrorists, all on the US mainland. You reap what you sew.

It's just a tragedy that so many innocents had to die to fulfill a few men's agendas. The same can be said for the thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilians who have died because of a few neo-cons in the Bush Administration who were rabid to unleash their Shock & Awe campaign of massive bombing on a Third World Country.

[Edited on 14-8-2003 by Jakomo]

I made no reference to melting..only to extreme metal fatique combined with the MASSIVE structural damage done from impact. No one suggest metal melts in a structure fire but every state building code in the state requires any structure subjected to fire condemned until proper inspecting and then most recommend demolition unless its a historical building and then special requirements for additional support of the old structure must be put in place. The WTC is not the first non-wooden structure to weaken and collapse due to such damage. Even masony structures are rated for fire such as walls constructed to endure fire for an hour or more. heat alone was not the reason for the collapse, it was a combination of the heat and the weakend structure on the floors affect which caused their collapse onto the floors below. Gravity increased the downward force beyond the external frame's capability to transfer such load to the piles and to the rockline they are driven too. This external frame which was the loadbearing structure according to the architect, was responsible for the downward collapse. Much like a radio tower when it fails, it fails straight downward (although a radio tower tends to spiral) due to gravities pull on the massive weight of the structure. No building topples sideways...that would violate the laws of physics as one side would have to raise up in the air in tact and would not. The building we have all seen fall starting with one side and progressing to another are the work of professional demolition teams which time such blast to release the pressure which caused the cloud of debris we saw from WTC.

I guess because I work in the field and actually have a degree in Construction technologies, its easier for me to understand the mechanics of materials and their performance. Like I stated in one thread..I wasn't shocked when they failed..just that they continue to stand for so long.

Now, i can't atribute any arguments as to whether the government played in roll in the events that led up to it, I can just say from professional experience..no additional explosions were needed to bring those buildins down. I was suprise by building 7 going down until I delved a little deeper into the footing layouts and realized just what a massive blow it had to be and the extreme force applied not only to the buildings but to the reinforcement , the piling, as well as the supporting rock itself. Everything is subject to change when pressure is upon it. Much of the "ROCK" in NY isn't rock but highly consolidated glacial till that,until a collapse of a bridge in the late 80s due to rock scour, had gone largely ignored by engineers. No way to know without some testing how this material reacts to such impact..whether it would react its liquifaction frequency from this is unknown...but I dare say not for long.

finally a smart person