fire not hot enough to melt steel at wtc ? here's proof

I want everyone to look at this picture.

In the wound of the WTC towers, there were people, alive and well not burnt, who were pleading for someone to help them. You can see them in the gaping holes in the towers.

Now I want people to think for a minute. The fires in the building, were supposedly hot enough to melt steel, well get into that later. But, it wasnt hot enough to burn the skin of people? People can survive, right where the plane impacted, how can people survive that intense heat if it supposedly melted steel?

Ok, we have another hole in the official story.

Now, ask any physics professor, like Steven Jones from BYU, and they will tell you ordinary steel does not melt until at least 2500 degrees. Now, for STRUCTURAL STEEL, guess how much heat it takes to even begin to melt structural steel? Over 3000 degrees!!

The 911 commision, they said the heat in the towers was no more than 1800 degrees. Steel does not melt at 1800 degrees. Period. It is against the laws of physics for fire to have caused the collapse of 3 towers, within literally hours, and its physically impossible for the melted steel to land on top of itself, collapsing right in its footprint.

I mean i can maybe believe that if it was one tower. But ALL 3 TOWERS? I mean it just reeks of inside job, you cant get around that.

Plus, WTC complex owner Larry Silverstein, went on PBS and said "we pulled the buildings" demolition term for imploding, bringing the buildings down by explosives.

When you look at footage of the collapses, on all 3 of the towers, you can clearly see blast points just as the towers are collapsing. You can see the blast points, row by row, as soon as the blasts went off, the stories gave out.

And what about firefighters and policemen who were told to evacuate, theyre quote "bringing the buildings down". What about footage of explosions in WTC 7 basement right right before the collapse.

What about the hi-jackers passport, which survived everything, the whole event, unscathed. With that one passport, they were able to get the names of all the hi-jackers and their pictures within minutes. There were fires that melted steel, we are told, but the fire couldnt burn a piece of paper??

911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. WE DONT HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW THEY DID IT, JUST LOOK AT THE HOLES IN THE STORY THEY GIVE YOU! NOW WHY WOULD THEY LIE TO YOU?

Nooooo! The government would not kill 3000 people on 911, as a pretext for war, no way. Nooo, they would only let 4000 american men women and children die in the Philippines during WW2, for a NEWS REEL.

They were told leave the civilians there, itll be good for the news reels, declassified documents now prove it without doubt. They would let 4000 americans die for a piece of propaganda, but they wouldnt let 3000 people die on 911 for war?

Do not be skeptical beyong reason, all you skeptics out there. Logic is logic.

So, if we can't say for certain that the fires were hot enough to melt the steel, but we think that they were hot enough to make the steel loose it's integrity, how can that explain the massive collapse all the way down? The Law of Resistance would have the collapse happen at a much slower rate. Just think for a minute all the steel below that is unaffected by the fire. Can you really imagine the heat being transfered throughout all the rest of the steel in the building making it loose it's integiry as well? Yet, massive steel columns were projected outward from the building. Not even the core is left standing!!
All of this from fire and gravity?

It's almost that people think these towers were totally hollow or made of match sticks.

Building 7 with open air fires burning office supplies, a small chuck of the building missing, collapses at free fall speeds at ALL four corners!!!!

If you support the offical story, than you must support the idea of the highjackers passport flying out of his pocket after crashing the plane into the building and it landing of the street too. I have no idea how you can believe this and still support the offical story?

This whole thing stinks to high heaven!!!! 9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

In 1975 the North tower had fires that burned for over 3 hours and caused no damge to the steel.

Now we are supposed to believe that fires burning less then an hour caused high heating of enough steel beams to cause the whole tower to collapse.

I do not think anyone is saying the fires where hot enough to melt steel. Why do people keep saying 'no molten steal no collapes'?

Originally posted by Vinadetta
So, if we can't say for certain that the fires were hot enough to melt the steel, but we think that they were hot enough to make the steel loose it's integrity, how can that explain the massive collapse all the way down? The Law of Resistance would have the collapse happen at a much slower rate. Just think for a minute all the steel below that is unaffected by the fire. Can you really imagine the heat being transfered throughout all the rest of the steel in the building making it loose it's integiry as well? Yet, massive steel columns were projected outward from the building. Not even the core is left standing!!

So there is a formal Law of Resistance, never heard of that one, other then Ohms law. The law of conservation of momentum might work better here.
The heat did not transfer down and weaken the building. The support for the top floors gave way, because of heat and the explosion, and the the top floors began to fall. When the mass of floors hits another floor the mass slows down very little, the moving floor mass being much more massive then the stationary floor, so little deceleration happens. The mass on the single floor is then added to the falling mass causing even less deceleration at each floor and the mass accelerate until the impact at the ground.

Originally posted by numb99
I do not think anyone is saying the fires where hot enough to melt steel.

Check out the title of this thread.

I think the guy might've been talking about conservation of kinetic energy, where if two masses collide, the net kinetic energy stays the same because the velocity drops accordingly. So if a floor fell and hit the one below it, and stuck to it and pushed it downwards, then each floor should have seen a loss of velocity even if all the mass fell straight down.

In reality, most of the mass ended up going over the sides in both buildings, and what's worse, a lot of that kinetic energy was lost to pulverizing concrete into dust, sending so much debris out laterally, heat due to friction, and things like that. So on top of losing mass as the collapses went along, and falling into stronger and stronger floors as they neared the base, they would also have had to have been losing massive amounts of energy to do all those things that had been scratching their heads from the start. And yet the collapse didn't slow down the whole way down?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by numb99
I do not think anyone is saying the fires where hot enough to melt steel.

Check out the title of this thread.

Yes,,, fire not hot enough to melt steel at wtc

I think the guy might've been talking about conservation of kinetic energy, where if two masses collide, the net kinetic energy stays the same because the velocity drops accordingly. So if a floor fell and hit the one below it, and stuck to it and pushed it downwards, then each floor should have seen a loss of velocity even if all the mass fell straight down.

In reality, most of the mass ended up going over the sides in both buildings, and what's worse, a lot of that kinetic energy was lost to pulverizing concrete into dust, sending so much debris out laterally, heat due to friction, and things like that. So on top of losing mass as the collapses went along, and falling into stronger and stronger floors as they neared the base, they would also have had to have been losing massive amounts of energy to do all those things that had been scratching their heads from the start. And yet the collapse didn't slow down the whole way down?

I have replied to a very simular post of yours in another thread, so I will make this short.
The falling mass was not lossing mass on the way down. The mass of debris blowing out the building would not come close to the mass of concret and steal the joins the falling mass at each floor. The conservation of kinetic energy says that a loss of vel. will happen at each floor, but it is based on the ratio of moving mass, huge, to stationary mass, small. As the falling mass gains mass the effect of each floor becomes less.
I could be wrong, but I don t think the floors got stroger and stroger on the way down. Each floor only held up its own wieght.

I will accept your claim that fire melts steel IF you do the following:

1. First, turn on your gas stove & ignite.
2. Place a steel or aluminium pot on top of the blue flame

(Bear in mind while doing this that the oxygen fueled flame will be a LOT hotter than an oxygen starved fire as in the case of the WTC's but lets ignore logic as you have done for a moment)

3. Report back here in an hour with pics of melted pots.

thanks

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Nonchalant]

I think sophistcated explosive devices explain how steel melted and was even vaporised: www.saunalahti.fi...

Originally posted by VicRH
I think sophistcated explosive devices explain how steel melted and was even vaporised: www.saunalahti.fi...

Excellent analysis.

Im convinced now this is what happened.

Well done.

Originally posted by numb99

Originally posted by bsbray11
Check out the title of this thread.

Yes,,, fire not hot enough to melt steel at wtc

Ok, lol, read the thread post:

Originally posted by gen.disaray
im ALWAYS hearing that the fire was in no way hot enough to melt the steel and cause the wtc to collapse . well , here's some video proof of that happening

And believe it or not, the original "official story", for a little while anyway, was that the towers came down because the steel was melted, and all of these structural and civil engineering professors from prominent universities came out and said the same thing (because they aren't metallurgists, they don't know any better ). That's partially why you keep hearing it today, because it used to be widely accepted.

The falling mass was not lossing mass on the way down.

What's this FEMA diagram show?




What's this look like?




Where are all the "pancaked" floors?

The conservation of kinetic energy says that a loss of vel. will happen at each floor, but it is based on the ratio of moving mass, huge, to stationary mass, small.

What huge mass are you talking about? Are you thinking that the whole upper block of structure came down and smashed onto the trusses with all its weight? Try to visualize what you're saying.

I could be wrong, but I don t think the floors got stroger and stroger on the way down. Each floor only held up its own wieght.

Each set of mechanical floors were reinforced with I-beams encased into the concrete in the floor, and the last 9 or 12 floors or so were all reinforced in the same way. I've also seen I-beams laying around on what look like completely ordinary floors in construction photos, which makes me wonder. More importantly, though, the columns, which weren't just left standing after the floors fell, but fell right from the start, dead-evenly with the floors.

Think of the implications, when WTC1 starts falling, and all 4 corners of its roof drop at the same time. Have you ever seriously tried to visualize how that happens from floors falling, when the floors only consist of a number of independent trusses strung between the core and perimeter? You realize the trusses could have been gutted completely from several floors in a row and the structure would still stand without problems? Even NIST has this information buried somewhere in their report, because they modeled it. Or have you ever tried to visualize how all the trusses could possibly fall together, all at the same instant? Even the antenna fell straight down with the roof, and it was supported by the core, not the perimeters. So even the core starting falling simultaneously and dead-evenly with everything else. How does that happen, man?

This fire alone would not have led to its collapse. The structural damage, however, did allow this fire to to weaken the steel (and heat it causing it to expand and cause greater stresses. to the point were it could no longer support the eccentricity provided by the missing columns. Axial loads are easy enough to support, but when one takes a column designed from concentric load (either tension or compression) and subjects it to extreme eccentricity from an unbalanced load (where two columns are missing next to secure set one would have twice the load and an eccentricity that would lead to a moment approximately equal to ((typical distributed load shared over that section)* 8*(spanlength)^2)/11. That is not exact because of the fashion they constructed it in but its a good approximation. Anyone who really wants a feel for how large steel buildings should sit down with the AISC codebook. I mostly work and concentrate on reinforced concrete and stay away from tall building and stick to bridges, but I can assure you that 99.99 percent of steel structures would fail under this kind of duress.

Also of interest, I recently attended a ASCE hosted lecture by an associate engineer at SOM (builders of the sears tower, burj dubia, and many other of the worlds tallest buildings). And while no one asked specifically about the trade centers because the idea of this failure was somehow not possible on its own is laughable in ASCE circles. But someone asked (probably some environmental engineer (engineering humor I know)) asked why there was not a greater emphasis on making buildings resistant to these attacks even after 911. And the answer was something along the lines of, "It's not practical. These buildings would look like bunkers, and no one would want to look at them or pay for them."

PS..... For those who think the floors below should have stood, take approximately 3/8 to 5/8 of what you think you could lift (approximately the what we design for in structures compared to standard load) and then have someone drop it from 8 feet up and let's see you catch it.

Originally posted by AHCivilE
Axial loads are easy enough to support, but when one takes a column designed from concentric load (either tension or compression) and subjects it to extreme eccentricity from an unbalanced load (where two columns are missing next to secure set one would have twice the load and an eccentricity that would lead to a moment approximately equal to ((typical distributed load shared over that section)* 8*(spanlength)^2)/11.

Which is why all four corners of WTC1 dropped at the same time, along with the antenna, which was held by the core, right?

Even though you guys don't deal with dynamic systems, I'm sure you get the point, that in any symmetrical structure, you punch out a section of it on one side, it's going to fall into that side if it falls at all, and not straight down into itself from all points simultaneously.

Btw, I noticed one of your fellow ASCE members is with the organization 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice', Jason Griffin. He's listed as a project coordinator on the member roster at the STJ911 home page.

A 30+ year-experienced structural engineer by the name of Charles Pegelow goes over problems he sees with the official report here, too, if you want to check out the situation from another structural engineer's point of view.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Which is why all four corners of WTC1 dropped at the same time, along with the antenna, which was held by the core, right?

No.

The hat truss that tied all the supports together is what caused the symetrical collapse.

How exactly did you expect a structure like that to behave bsbray?

Did you imagine it would just topple over without any forces acting on it to tilt it out far enough?

As the fire weakened the steel on multiple floors columns failed. As columns failed their loads were added to the loads of the intact columns until it became too great, resulting in catastrophic failure.

We all know that there were plane crashes and fire, the most likely cause of the collapses.

I suppose you would have us believe that bombs/nukes/thermites dropped the tower?

Cause theres no holes in those theories, right?



Considering that almost every stuctural engineer or demolition expert disagrees or has serious problems with your pet theory doesn't bother you in the slightest, why would you expect the lone crackpots who believe in energy beams to sway someones opinion?





There is just as much evidence that I personally caused the towers to collapse with magical leprechauns as there is for bomb/nukes/thermite.

And yet the NIST ignores both my involvement and the role of leprechauns in the collapse, clearly a cover up!!


The official story does not require steel to melt in the fires.

Nonchalant, if you believe that this:



Is in any way comparable to this:



Well it's no wonder if you accept the whole lie that is the 9-11 denial movement.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by LeftBehind]

Hey guys:

Tell me if i'm right or wrong: i posted an extensive report on just this subject in another forum:

Here is the link to this post of mine:

www.fulldisklosure.org...

Does anyone have access to jetliner fuel and some large steel pieces that they could burn? Just wondering.

As the fire weakened the steel on multiple floors columns failed. As columns failed their loads were added to the loads of the intact columns until it became too great, resulting in catastrophic failure.

We all know that there were plane crashes and fire, the most likely cause of the collapses.

I have two problems with this statement.

Firstly, I assume you mean beams not columns. There is no way a starved jet fuel fire could have weakened the columns. They were just too thick. Even assuming the heat was enough to weaken the beams the columns should have still been left standing. Herein lies the problem with your claim.

Secondly, we dont ALL know fire & planes caused the collapse. In fact most of us know they didnt. This is simply an assumption you make & one you would like us all to swallow.

I suppose you would have us believe that bombs/nukes/thermites dropped the tower?

Clearly from the evidence supplied by a previous poster, the demolition of the buildings was very similar to the picture of underground nuclear explosions. A nuclear explosion also explains the pulverisation of the concrete, something that cannot be considered akin to floors collapsing on top of themselves. Also, floors collapsing would not cause debris to explode upwards. Another thing clearly visible from the photos. There may be holes in this theory but they are pinholes compared to the holes in the official story or your claim.

Considering that almost every stuctural engineer or demolition expert disagrees or has serious problems with your pet theory doesn't bother you in the slightest, why would you expect the lone crackpots who believe in energy beams to sway someones opinion?

Again, a claim with no basis of fact or evidence. Where are these engineers? Assuming they exist I can give you 3 for every one you provide that has problems with your theory.

There is just as much evidence that I personally caused the towers to collapse with magical leprechauns as there is for bomb/nukes/thermite.

Another furfy. Show me the leprachauns causing this damage in a similar instance.

Nonchalant, if you believe that this:

Is in any way comparable to this:

Well it's no wonder if you accept the whole lie that is the 9-11 denial movement.

The only lie about 9/11 is the official story. Clearly from these photos, the heat in the towers is nowhere near the heat generated by the stovetop. that is clearly visible by comparing the color of the heated metal in both pictures.

If you or anyone else expects anyone with an ounce of intelligence to believe your lie your going to have to come up with evidence to support your claim. The truth movement is clearly well ahead of you when it comes to proof.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Nonchalant]

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Nonchalant]

Originally posted by Nonchalant Clearly from these photos, the heat in the towers is nowhere near the heat generated by the stovetop. that is clearly visible by comparing the color of the heated metal in both pictures.

I can't believe that you actually believe that.


Wow. . .

Are you really trying to get people to believe that an electric burner on an oven burns hotter than a multistory fire burning acres of office space?

I can't believe that you actually believe that.

Wow. . .

Are you really trying to get people to believe that an electric burner on an oven burns hotter than a multistory fire burning acres of office space?

You prefer to use the comparison of an electric burner. Though the comparison may be the same, I prefer to use the gas stove as a comparison. My reasoning being that clearly a blue flame is hotter than a red flame. You cant argue that.

And are you seriously trying to get people to believe that a fuel fire can melt steel? That it can devour a steel & concrete building? That it can cause a building to explode upwards & outwards? That it can pulverise it into dust? That molten metal can be found beneath the rubble for months afterwards as a result of a fuel fire? That jet fuel can be dispersed by a flame 80 floors up a 100 storey building YET despite igniting, then pour 80 floors into the basement AND then explode again?? And finally that a few 'spot fires' once quenched, can cause a 47 storey building to collapse at freefall speed? And on top of that, you expect us to believe some crazy arabs hijacked 4 jets with boxcutters then flew around unimpeded for an hour before hitting their targets with pinpoint accuracy without the interference of the US military?

Its not me that needs a reality check...

Originally posted by LeftBehind

I can't believe that you actually believe that.


Wow. . .

Are you really trying to get people to believe that an electric burner on an oven burns hotter than a multistory fire burning acres of office space?

I believe the correct statement would be that the burning building produces more heat, but the electric burner is a higher temperature than the steel in the building. Just like an iceberg has more heat than a match, but the match is hotter.

You really think the steel in the WTC towers reached a temperature that it was glowing red from the jet fuel fires?

fixed statement

[edit on 6-4-2007 by 2PacSade]

Sorry fellas I never said anything about molten steel or steel glowing red.

But it is downright silly to compare an office fire covering acres of space to a burner on either a gas or electric stove.

The comparison has no value whatsoever, as the conditions do not match up at all.

To expect the properties of a burner on a stove to somehow make a point about gigantic office fires is one of the longest stretches imaginable, and to be frank, is laughable.