Explosives in the WTC 7 bought it down...I believe now...

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

lol....ah yes, I have run into yet another individual that thinks the Pentagon has trillions of dollars stuff away in piggy banks. Hate to break it to you, but it does not. You can choose to accept the facts or you can choose to remain ignorant.

I see I am talking to a child I will overlook your immature comments.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


1 i know read myy post i know it expands

2 the core collums where not low carbon a36 steel some of the flooring i beam trusses where yes but the cores where not 1/2 inch thick they where 5 inch and where a572 which has a min ksi/psi of 75/75,000 look at chapter 3 thickfire.nist.gov...
911research.wtc7.net...

3 sorry ment thermal expansion not shrinkage sorr about that my tounge got wraped around my eye tooth and i couldnt see what i was saying

4 i meant thermo expansion as i said in one

5 regardless dosnt change law number 1 and 2 of thermo dynamics and you should know that

6 meant expansion dont know why shrinkage kept sticking in my head read one agin

7 i know its wright the only fact i was off was the grade of steel and its psi sorry for that the ksi /psi ranged depending where the steel was and its purpose
you know that as well as i do you tried to generalize the steel as did I but different thickness had different ksi/psi you just stated the minimum of the thinest a36 low carbon steel used when there where 4 differant grades low,, medium, high, and alloy, used AND you know that also dont you sneaky SOB arnt you

8 sorry i generlized the steel,and the steel used was a 36 ,a572,a514 which is 110,000 psi and they used E110XX on that metal

9 thermodynamics law 1 and 2 cover this en.wikipedia.org...
and yes unless the whole area was heated to 2000 degrees and kept that temperature en.wikipedia.org... kicks in and you know it


10what evry read my post i just got some things twisted trying to type to fast sorry for that but i have done plent think what u want

11 wrong and you know it just read the laws en.wikipedia.org...

12 wrong agin read is all you have to do en.wikipedia.org...

looks like you dont know about thermodynamics
i beg to differ en.wikipedia.org...

13 www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

svnlsenetter.files.wordpress.com...

www.911readingroom.org...

www.sharpprintinginc.com...

9eleven.info...

www.youtube.com...://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&fkt=2789&fsdt=9396&q=molten%20metal%20wtc&um=1&ie=UTF-8iurl= i1.ytimg.com...

www.youtube.com...

14 wrong just read and understand the laws en.wikipedia.org...

15 no im saying that the flames didnt burn long enough or hot enough acording to law 1 and 2 en.wikipedia.org...

16 and agin read the laws they are in black and white for you to read sorry your wrong




[edit on 18-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 18-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

reply to post by esdad71

Blab! Blab! Why don’t you show us proof to your statements, and stop the ranting. We would like to see some sources. I am not going to take your word for anything, and no one else is going to as well.
If you want to rant then go to Below Top Secret, they have a RANT page for you.
I thought this was a debating forum, and not a rant room.

Originally posted by lycopersicum

2 the core collums where not low carbon a36 steel some of the flooring i beam trusses where yes but the cores where not 1/2 inch thick they where 5 inch and where a572 which has a min ksi/psi of 75/75,000 look at chapter 3 thickfire.nist.gov...
911research.wtc7.net...

7-different thickness had different ksi/psi you just stated the minimum of the thinest a36 low carbon steel used when there where 4 differant grades low,, medium, high, and alloy, used

8 sorry i generlized the steel,and the steel used was a 36 ,a572,a514 which is 110,000 psi and they used E110XX on that metal

9a -and yes unless the whole area was heated to 2000 degrees and kept that temperature

10what evry read my post i just got some things twisted trying to type to fast sorry for that but i have done plent think what u want

1

2- 2.1.1 of that report - pg 35/86 - the columns were 14 grades of ssteel, 36-100 ksi. And 2.1.2 - also pg35/86 - core box columns were either 36 or 42 ksi. Again, you're wrong, as proven by your own source......

7- nope, the grade of steel stays the same, regardless of its thickness. A36 is A36 regardless. To determine its yield strength, you use thickness, but that is a separate issue that is determined by loads.

8- try reading the pages I told you about in #4. You will discover your errors there.

9- why is 2000F so important to you? You didn't answer. Is there a load factor/weakening you're claiming that must be met or exactly... what?

10- not enough. You have the steel grades all wrong for one, as proven by your own source. What else do you have wrong then? Does the fact that you're wrong about something verifiable like the grades of steel used give you a hint that there lies a possibility that you have all this other stuff wrong too?

Originally posted by lycopersicum

15 no im saying that the flames didnt burn long enough or hot enough acording to law 1 and 2 en.wikipedia.org...

Something for you to consider about typical office fires and how quick they heat up - about 2000F in 20 minutes

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

the modern offices tend to contain large quantities of hydrocarbon fuels in decoration, furniture, computers and electric devices, in forms of polymers, plastics, artificial leathers and laminates etc. Consequently, the fire becomes more severe than the conventional standard fire.

And the graph that shows their results here:

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

I can also show you results that show a steel beam - of a similar size AND thickness as the core columns.... and they heat up pretty quick. Do I really need to show that too?

The simple facts of temperatures:

* 1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
* ~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
* ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.

Even if the fires were hot enough to magically weaken or melt the steel, there would still not be a complete global collapse of the buildings. Do you realize how many millions of dollars or thousands of hours of time demo companies would save if they could pour some jet fuel in the middle of a building and then watch the whole thing come down?

Or better yet, replace the planes that partially damaged 3 to 4 floors with explosives to completely blow up those 3 or 4 floors in the middle and watch it come completely down. Demos don't work like that and demo companies would be rich beyond believe if they could do that.

A building has to be rigged from top to bottom for a complete global collapse. You can't set fires to bring buildings down and you can take out a few floors to bring buildings down. No matter what way you look at it, 3 WTC buildings were brought down with explosives and there's no other logical explanation for it. All available evidence points to demolition.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by _BoneZ_]

[edit on 18-1-2009 by _BoneZ_]

* 1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
* ~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
* ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

At 1100 F (600 C) steel loses 1/2 of its strength, at 1500 F (800 C) it
is 1/4 of original strength

Now if I design a building and suddenly the support columns can only
support 1/4 of the load what do you think will happen?

Originally posted by thedman
Now if I design a building and suddenly the support columns can only
support 1/4 of the load what do you think will happen?

There's not gonna be any "suddenly" about it. Fires and heat are gradual, they are not sudden. Even if what you say is true even though you didn't provide a reference, only the columns in the damaged area would be affected. The rest of the quarter-mile-high building would be perfectly structurally sound.

These buildings are not made out of matchsticks or a house of cards. They do not easily fall down. Even if fire magically weakend the 3 or 4 floors that were impacted by the plane, the rest of the building would be structurally sound and there would be no global collapse unless the entire building was rigged with explosives and all available evidence shows us they were. You can't bring steel-structured buildings down with fire on a few floors. Demolitionists wire the entire building from top to bottom to bring buildings down. With your logic, they would just use fire and be rich beyond belief saving millions of dollars not having to buy explosives and thousands of hours prepping and planting those explosives.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by _BoneZ_]

Check out the Interstate 580/80 fire several years ago - gasoline truck
flipped on turn. Resulting fire buckled the steel supports on overpass
and caused it to collapse

en.wikipedia.org...


Similar thing happened in Connecticut on I 95 - heating oil truck rolled
and crashed in bridge abutements - fire caused bridge to collapse
I talked to one of the firemen who was there couple days later...

On March 26, 2004, a bridge on I-95 in Bridgeport, Connecticut was partly melted by the explosion of a tanker truck carrying over 11,900 gallons (45,000 L) of fuel oil. Repairs were estimated to take at least two weeks, but the highway was opened to northbound traffic in only a few days. Southbound traffic resumed about a week later

Back in 1980's trash fire under I 78 in Newark NJ buckled large section
of elevated roadway.

A section of Interstate 78 in New Jersey was closed off in August 1989 when a debris pile under a bridge caught fire and damage the elevated highway. The road was opened nine days after the fire occurred.[7]

So still say fire does not weaken steel and cause it to collapse?

Originally posted by thedman
So still say fire does not weaken steel and cause it to collapse?

Never said fire doesn't weaken steel. I said fire wouldn't cause a global collapse. That's what controlled demolition companies are for and that's why they have to rig the entire building from top to bottom to bring them down.

You're more than welcome to call any controlled demo company and ask why they don't bring buildings down by setting some fires on a few floors. They'll tell you the same thing I'm telling you here.

For a building to collapse completely, all of it's supports have to be taken out from top to bottom. Even if the small, cool, weak fires of the WTC had caused weakening of the steel, there may have been localized collapse in the damaged areas only, but the rest of the buildings' supports were intact and not damaged. Had explosives not been used to bring those buildings down, they would still be standing today undergoing repairs, or been demolished which is what they accomplished on 9/11 anyways.

It really doesn't matter how you spin it, you won't find a demo company that uses fire to bring buildings down because fire doesn't cause a whole complete steel structure to collapse when the fire is only in a localized area. Fire in a localized area may cause localized damage to the local supports, but not the rest of the supports in the quarter mile high twin towers.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by _BoneZ_]

[edit on 18-1-2009 by _BoneZ_]

[edit on 18-1-2009 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Never said fire doesn't weaken steel. I said fire wouldn't cause a global collapse.

So then it looks like you agree that fires can cause a local collapse.

Then the question becomes, can a local collapse cause a global collapse?

Structural engineers have answered this, and the answer is yes....

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
can a local collapse cause a global collapse? Structural engineers have answered this, and the answer is yes

There's more structural engineers that would say no. Please show proof that a local collapse will cause a global collapse in a steel-structured high-rise. I'm sure demo companies would like to know this also so they can stop spending so much money on explosives and stop wasting so much time rigging and prepping buildings.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by _BoneZ_]

[edit on 18-1-2009 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Never said fire doesn't weaken steel. I said fire wouldn't cause a global collapse.

So then it looks like you agree that fires can cause a local collapse.

Then the question becomes, can a local collapse cause a global collapse?

Structural engineers have answered this, and the answer is yes....

Look, I'll try to make it simple enough for you to understand:

Have you ever boiled water? It takes T-I-M-E to heat the water sufficiently to boil. The more water you have, the longer it takes. Another way of putting it is that the less time you have to heat it, the more energy is required. You with me so far?

Likewise it takes either more time or more energy to heat steel to the weakening point. The first tower fell less than an hour after being hit, the second in about 40 mintutes, so there was insufficient time for that much steel to be heated to the degree required for weakening, so that means more energy was required to do the job. The energy available in the form of jet fuel burns at 287.5 °C (549.5 °F), far less than what would weaken steel. According to the research cited below, a hydrocarbon fire in an office structure remains constant at 1100-1120 C after forty minutes. Now that temperature wasn't reached immediately: it takes time to heat things up to that level, too much time for the steel to heat to failure.

On top of the processor chip in your computer is a thing called a heat sink: it absorbs the heat given off by your processor and keeps it from melting. The core columns of the towers functioned as a super-massive heat sink, sucking away heat as fast as it was applied, trying to reach equilibrium. If you look at the beam temperature data supplied in the link below, you'll see that an office fire of 1100-1120 degrees C heats the beams below it to a temperature of only a few hundred degrees after an hour.

The only possible conclusion that can emerge from the data is that, barring explosives, there was insufficient energy and time available to significantly weaken the structures, and nowhere near enough to cause them to collapse.

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...
www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

The links are to the University of Manchester, in England, so please don't dismiss their data with a "yeah, but...", please: this is a neutral source of high integrity dealing with well-documented test data. If you have a shred of countervailing evidence, then please post it.

At the very least, if you lack evidence, please construct a chain of logic that accounts for the physics involved that excludes explosive demolition, on a level higher than "I know it ain't so, so there...".

[edit on 18-1-2009 by apacheman]

reply to post by lycopersicum

Lyco,
You claimed that “aviation fuel is 2/5ths kerosene ( look at its open air burn temp its less then 600 degrees )its BTU factor is way way to low (max temp for aviation fuel is 1500 degrees in a controlled burn of a injected fuel system “
Aviation Jet-A has the same heating value as kerosene. The distillation cuts do not affect energy content significantly, just flash point and bulk density. In any case, kerosene/diesel is not a requisite to fire damage. In WTC 1 & 2, burning Jet-A probably spread the fires more quickly from floor to floor, but the main fuel was combustibles; rugs, paint, office furnishings, paper, etc. In WTC 7, fires were not spread vertically by the diesel generator fuel tanks, but apparently were started by impacts from WTC 1 and 2. Once started, they could not be extinguished because the water lines to the complex were cut by the collapse of the towers. WTC6 was not damaged nearly as much as WTC7 but burned also and collapsed internally from the fires and nothing else. The fuel for both: office contents.

You should not confuse or mix Centigrade and Fahrenheit scales. 600 C is 1112 F. Air temperatures in the burning building at the ceilings of the burning offices were at or near 1000 C [1800 F] and it is estimated that the floor above the fire could have reached 675 C [about 1250 F]; heat transfer and heat capacities make the difference. No equilibrium here, not enough time at sustained heat.
Steel doesn't pull heat away fast or no one could cut it with a torch. The beams heated based on input from the fires. Heat flow is a function of cross section and temperature difference. Heat flow in I-beam cross section is readily determined because we know the heat capacity of the steel and can estimate heat flux, but fatigue or melting of the bulk steel is not what caused the collapse. There was no thermodynamic equilibrium because as the contents burned, the fire moved around the building, heating different places while others cooled. The weak points are the joints and expansion of some of the beams against the rest of the structure causing buckling of beams and joint failure at 400 C [750 F]. When enough joints fail, the building can no longer support itself. The insulation around the beams in WTC7 was rated for three hours. After four hours of fire, the structure was significantly deteriorated because of the thermal expansion.
Joints failed and the building became unbalanced and collapsed much as if someone had cut the bolts with a torch. Here, the cuts were a matter of circumstance rather than a plan by a mastermind.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by lycopersicum

 

The weak points are the joints and expansion of some of the beams against the rest of the structure causing buckling of beams and joint failure at 400 C [750 F]. When enough joints fail, the building can no longer support itself. The insulation around the beams in WTC7 was rated for three hours. After four hours of fire, the structure was significantly deteriorated because of the thermal expansion.
Joints failed and the building became unbalanced and collapsed much as if someone had cut the bolts with a torch. Here, the cuts were a matter of circumstance rather than a plan by a mastermind.

Okay, if your reasoning is that the joints in WTC7 failed after exceeding their rated time limit of three hours, why did the joints fail in the twin towers after less than an hour? And why haven't ANY other joints failed in ANY other building fire EVER, even after burning for days?

You can't have it both ways: joints that fail because they were heated too long, and joints that fail in less than a fourth of the time for the same reason. Please reconcile those discrepancies, please.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by apacheman]

Originally posted by thedman
Check out the Interstate 580/80 fire several years ago - gasoline truck
flipped on turn. Resulting fire buckled the steel supports on overpass
and caused it to collapse

No steel was melted in that collapse. The bridge was repaired and the steel re-used. I posted on this years ago, where were you?

The only thing that melted was the rubber mounts that stop vibration between the sections.

You cannot take what you read in the MSM as fact. And to believe the steel actually melted just shows your level of education.

SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - The portion of the East Bay freeway charred in an explosion three days ago will likely be repaired rather than demolished and replaced, significantly shortening the time the heavily used road remains closed, state transit officials said Tuesday. Preliminary test results on 3- to 4-inch samples of southbound Interstate 880 — conducted to determine the level of fractures inside — are expected as early as today, and will give officials an idea of repair costs and when the interstate can reopen.

"It doesn’t look right now like we’re going to have to replace it,” Caltrans spokesman Bob Haus said. “We might have to do some straightening, but it looks as if the actual structure is OK despite the scorching.”

www.examiner.com...

Maybe you should do some re-thinking about the whole 9/11 incidents there eh thedman?

reply to post by apacheman

With his logic, demo companies could just set some fires throughout a building and wait a few hours for it to come down instead of spending millions of dollars in explosives and employees, and spending thousands of hours prepping and rigging buildings.

I don't understand why people can't comprehend that steel-structured high-rises have never collapsed due to fire that's burned for hours or days, or that none have ever globally collapsed except when they were demolished with explosives.

Debunkers want to believe so badly that their government is good and would never do anything to it's own people, that they reach for every explanation they can think of to give themselves peace of mind and to try to explain away what really happened.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

1-There's more structural engineers that would say no.

2-Please show proof that a local collapse will cause a global collapse in a steel-structured high-rise.

1- please show your sources for this nonsense

2-doesn't make more sense to examine whether or not THOSE local collapses can cause a global collapse?

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

www.debunking911.com...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

www.counterpunch.org...

www.kz.tsukuba.ac.jp...

Originally posted by thedman
At 1100 F (600 C) steel loses 1/2 of its strength, at 1500 F (800 C) it
is 1/4 of original strength
Now if I design a building and suddenly the support columns can only
support 1/4 of the load what do you think will happen?

The problem is how do you get the steel to heat up that much from an open air fire?

The only steel getting direct heat would be very little, and not enough to heat it up anywhere close to 1100F.

You have to understand how heat transfer works. The office fire has to transfer its heat (thermal energy) to the steel, as well as transferring heat to the air around it, which makes it a very inefficient way to heat up the steel. The fire only contains so much heat energy, eventually equilibrium occurs and no more transfer of heat occurs as both the steel and fire reach the same temperature. So, an office fires max temp being around 800d there is no way the steel would get hotter than that, and the chance of it getting anywhere close to that in open air is just unthinkable. The only way that would happen is on a closed controlled situation where ALL the heat transfers directly to the steel, like they do in a foundry where they use 2000d+ of direct heat to just get the steel malleable (not molten).

Steel columns act like a heat sink and any direct heat would be wicked away along the length of the columns. Open air fire would not burn hot enough, or in our case, long enough to heat up that much steel. That's 120 stories of steel wicking away heat that's on only a couple of floors. An open air fire wouldn't even cause a 2 foot long column to fail in an hour.

You can do this at home. Set up a bonfire, or use a barrel, use whatever fuel you want, yes even jet fuel, place a steel bar in that fire and then see what it looks like after an hour. Would you be willing to actually do this thedman? You should try it, you would learn a lot.

After years of reading both sides of the WT7 story I have changed my mind about explosives bringing it down. I believe now that the fire weakened the supports and brought the building down.

The simplest answer is sometimes the correct one.

I may be wrong, and someday there may be proof of the building being demo'd .Until then I am staying with the fire theory.