Fire breaks out at Vegas' Monte Carlo - Will it collapse?

Lets see -

No airliner smashing into building at 500mph and dumping 9000 gal of Jet
fuel inside.

No apparent structural damage

Fire contained quickly, no water supply problems

Why should it collapse ?

Also for the report workers using welding torches - possibly were laying
down rubber membrene roof. Propane torches used to seal seams.
Problem is if not done correctly can set the roof on fire.

Originally posted by dirtonwater
reply to post by Nola213

 

Thermite ? Are some people still sticking to that story ? Its been over 7 years and there is no evidence at all for you troofers. Sorry you invested so much time and money in your dillusions, but time to give it up, don't you think.

Have you bothered to study the metallurgy report gottago placed at least three times in another discussion? If you are interested, I can post the link to that report quite easily.

Originally posted by thedman
Lets see -

No airliner smashing into building at 500mph and dumping 9000 gal of Jet
fuel inside.

No apparent structural damage

Fire contained quickly, no water supply problems

Why should it collapse ?

Also for the report workers using welding torches - possibly were laying
down rubber membrene roof. Propane torches used to seal seams.
Problem is if not done correctly can set the roof on fire.

Since the "official" reports allege fire collapsed the twin towers, your points of argument are irrelvant. As I pointed out in another post in this discussion, there are other sources for flames which give off far more thermal engergy that carbon based jet fuel.

They are carbon based fuels, as well, but more free of carbon base than K-1 kerosene (one of the purest most carbon free of the petroleum products) type jet fuel. And, yet, jet fuel, still cannot provide the thermal energy to compromise steel, and cause entire collapse of any burning skeletal steel frame. I have proved that several times in various of discussions in this forum.

If people care to argue what I post, I highly recommend they do their own research, on the highest possible amount of thermal energy jet fuel can put out and under which exact conditions that happens for the highest.

Hmmm if the fire was caused by 100,000 pounds of jet fuel, and there were many stories of weight above the fire, and the fire was able to heat the steel core of the building 1000c to effectively lower the weight bearing properties of the steel down to 10% of what it can hold at room temperatures, oh and add in the force of energy of a 200k aircraft traveling at 500 mph to it all, then why yes it would collapse.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by Xtrozero]

Has it been over an hour yet?

Well the roof should collapse and explode then all the remaining floors beneath should explode and disintegrate to dust....I'm waiting...

Ok,ok here we go again with,no plane hit the building,and no jet fuel,blah blah frickin blah......
Ok now that being said,well what happened to WTC 7 then?
Last I checked,no plane and no jet fuel.

reply to post by Black_Fox


HEy Black...

WTC7 as I am SURE you know. Was showered with literally tons of debris from the collapsing towers. The building was burning for hours with little or no firefighting.

NIST has taken a LONG time trying to determin what in fact caused the collapse. There was a paper that was released recently the attempts to explain the cause.

Structure Magazine explains one probable cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"

www.structuremag.org...

Take a peek at it if you wish.

reply to post by OrionStars


Jet fuel acted as "accelerent", similar to lighter fluid used to ignite a
charcoal grill, the jet fuel set fire to multiple floors. It was the contents
fire including thousands of tons of paper. It was the burning contents
that provided most of the thermal energy.

Also the hotel rooms would compartmentize the building into small boxes
unlike the WTC which had large open floor. The compartments would
contain the fire and prevent it spreading giving the fire department
time to fight it. No damage to fire fighting systems, sprinklers
and standpipes, to deliver water. At WTC pipes were cut so if FDNY
could reach fire floor would not have any water. Elevators were
not damaged allowing fire department to deliver men and equipment
to fire floors. At WTC had to walk up crowded stairways.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Jet fuel acted as "accelerent", similar to lighter fluid used to ignite a
charcoal grill, the jet fuel set fire to multiple floors. It was the contents
fire including thousands of tons of paper. It was the burning contents
that provided most of the thermal energy.

Anything starting a fire is considered an accelerant. Could be petroleum products, propane, natural gas, etc etc. etc. What ignites a fire is the spark (ignition) to an accelerant. What is your relevant point?

Now please tell us everything you know about thermal energy. Can you do that?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Black_Fox

 

HEy Black...

WTC7 as I am SURE you know. Was showered with literally tons of debris from the collapsing towers. The building was burning for hours with little or no firefighting.

NIST has taken a LONG time trying to determin what in fact caused the collapse. There was a paper that was released recently the attempts to explain the cause.

Structure Magazine explains one probable cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"

www.structuremag.org...

Take a peek at it if you wish.

This has got to be your "Excuse",because it sure isnt the reason it fell.
If it were,then the "official" reason to why it collapsed would have been released,which it hasnt.
In fact,the official explanation is they dont know how it fell.
So if your explanation was plausible,then it would have been declared the reason,but it wasnt,so next...............................

Originally posted by OrionStars
Since the "official" reports attribute twin tower collapses to fire not alleged planes...

OrionStars, you have posted this lie repeatedly in several threads, and repeatedly been corrected by other members.

The 'official' investigations into the WTC 1&2 destruction attribute the building collapses to a COMBINATION OF EVENTS, of which the most significant was the structural damage to the core of the buildings caused by the aircraft impacts, and a secondary cause was the sustained fires which weakened the steel support structures.

You may have actually read NIST etc, and choose to misrepresent and lie about their conclusions in your posts in order to push your political agenda, which is now transparently obvious to other ATS members.

On the other hand, you may not even be familiar with the source material. If this is so, please read it and stop posting such BS.

And here we have Exhibit A of why, if anything is there to be found out over 9/11, will in fact NEVER be discovered. Far too many people walk into topics with their pre-conceived notions and their minds are already made up. Why is it that I rarely see someone approach a subject with an OPEN MIND, a completely blank slate, and let the evidence take them where it will - WHATEVER THE RESULT - even if it goes against what you originally thought.

No wonder "9/11 Conspiracies" is nothing but a shadow of it's former self. I truly wish more people will start to use their brains and common sense to talk about things in a calm, sensible manner instead of all the name calling and statements of it all being oh so obvious.

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
I want to trot out thr bridge in San Francisco collapsing last year after that puny, black smoke indicating a cool fire, oxygen starved, and fire can't weaken steel, thing.

Yes, let's look at that fire. The steel decking expanded from the heat and came off it's support at the expansion joints from too much expansion. There was no damage to the columns (piers) holding the slab up, just the slabs themselves.

Yes, let's compare bowling balls to feathers.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by bovarcher

The 'official' investigations into the WTC 1&2 destruction attribute the building collapses to a COMBINATION OF EVENTS, of which the most significant was the structural damage to the core of the buildings caused by the aircraft impacts, and a secondary cause was the sustained fires which weakened the steel support structures.

Actually, you are wrong. Sorry, but you are. The NIST model did not achieve failure initiation with a combination of the damage from plane impact and fire until the NIST jacked the temperatures up far above the point any metallurgical data or physical fire tests could support. So, because they couldn't achieve failure initiation until they reached extremely elevated temperatures, this NECESSARILY makes the failure primarily dependent on temperature (i.e. fire) and with a secondary contribution from damage due to impact.

So - please don't call names and make accusations against some one and then turn around and do exactly what you have accused them of. You have misrepresented the report from NIST.

Originally posted by bovarcher

Originally posted by OrionStars
Since the "official" reports attribute twin tower collapses to fire not alleged planes...

OrionStars, you have posted this lie repeatedly in several threads, and repeatedly been corrected by other members.

I am leaving in my words to qualify this response. If you think what I posted was a lie, then by all by means, prove it was a lie with authoritative claims it was not attributed to fire.

The "PM" article, which became the White House "official" report, declares it was. If you have argument with that, please take that up with the White House and Thomas Eagar, from where and whom the "official" report was originally fed to the general public.

I viewed the photo of the builiding in Las Vegas after the fire was out. There was no evidence of any steel collapsing due to fire. Exactly what I would have expected to happen per past history of steel and concrete buildings set on fire. We have no history of steel buildings totally collapsed from fire or anything heavy impacting them.

Yes, we certainly have had plane impacts of buildings at relatively high speed recorded in the history of aviation, plus, steel and concrete buildings. I cite ESB during the 40s as only one such instance historically documented and validated. That plane did not even starte to fully penetrate reinforced concrete, much less structural steel framing. Reinforced concrete, with rebar, is going to be nowhere as strong as structural steel framing, particularly double steel framing, under any circumstances.

Originally posted by Valhall...The NIST model did not achieve failure initiation with a combination of the damage from plane impact and fire until the NIST jacked the temperatures up far above the point any metallurgical data or physical fire tests could support. So, because they couldn't achieve failure initiation until they reached extremely elevated temperatures, this NECESSARILY makes the failure primarily dependent on temperature (i.e. fire) and with a secondary contribution from damage due to impact...

Yes, on re-reading carefully you're right. A very fine point, but no doubt an important one. Plane impact damage a factor in failure initiation, but just a factor.

reply to post by Xtrozero


What would any of that have to do with 9/11? The towers weren't subjected to anywhere near the destruction you're talking about, even the official reports will tell you that much.

[edit on 28-1-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Hmmm if the fire was caused by 100,000 pounds of jet fuel, and there were many stories of weight above the fire, and the fire was able to heat the steel core of the building 1000c to effectively lower the weight bearing properties of the steel down to 10% of what it can hold at room temperatures, oh and add in the force of energy of a 200k aircraft traveling at 500 mph to it all, then why yes it would collapse.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by Xtrozero]

NIST found no evidence of core steel heated to 1000 C so why are you feeling so free to throw that number around in this example? They only found core steel heated to as high as 250 C.