Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
at 550c steel has lost half its strength!

Can you explain why that matters, or are you just repeating something that you think makes sense?

If ALL the steel used to construct the towers lost half its strength it would still stand. Do you know why? Have you ever heard of a safety factor? All buildings must be at built to at least a x2 safety factor, which means the building can hold its own twice over.

Avg temp an office fire can get to is 1000c! look it up

You obviously didn't look it up...

Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

www.doctorfire.com...

The first tower to fall was on fire for approx an hour.

Not only that room temperature does not equate to steel temperature, the steel will never reach the temp of the room.
Go learn about thermal transfer.

So no the steel would not reach 1000d, and even NIST says no temps were found over 250d. No the room will not reach those temps in an hour, and the room temp will not transfer enough heat for the steel to reach critical temperatures in an hour.

Even if what you say is true, you still have the problem of the collapse contradicting Newtons laws of motion. There is still thousands of tons of steel that was not heated by the fire, in fact the whole lower floors that apparently were crushed by heated soft steel all the way to the ground, ignoring known physics.

Sorry but real physics trumps opinions and misunderstandings. You should really re-think your whole opinion on this mate.

At what temperature does concrete melt, 'cause it happened on 9/11.

reply to post by ANOK


Good post, wish I could give it multiple stars...it's a shame most folks understanding about the workings of their physical world has been taught to them by Hollywood.

WTC 7!!!! they pulled it! proof they pulled them all. its the only way!

Lets see just up a quick look before I go to work.

Ben81

Didn't answer my question am I NO!

ANOK

On another thread re this subject this post (you should all read the post)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Which has this video



Why no reply to the post

finalword

Please post a link to melting concrete

No reply re the Bejing Hotel either YOU KNOW your concrete structure

Oh and your mereorite was once claimed by a truther site as a lump of molten metal, well until someone pointed out it had paperwork in it

psikeyhackr

You KNOW what the Cardinton fire tests prove steel loses half its strength at 550c approx NIST report was NOT CONCLUSIVE on temperature YOU KNOW THAT they cannot be sure but it CANNOT be proved it didn't REACH HIGH ENOUGH temps either.

The trouble is YOU PEOPLE all look at the events in isolation.

Planes crashed STRUCTURAL DAMAGE
Fuel explodes more possible DAMAGE
Fires start more POSSIBLE DAMAGE

Due to above COMBINED !!!!!! sections of buildings above drop on lower floors HUGE DYNAMIC LOAD!!!!!
Most on here will not know what a dynamic load is(google it), they may have heard of wind load but what about other types of load.

Speaking of DYNAMIC LOADS ANOK care to tell everyone here about the video above because at least 2 people that post here under there laws of physics this would be impossible because the upper floors were held up for years by the lower floors!

Now look at close ups of the WTC collapse see if you can see whats SIMILAR with above video!

Ben81 post some info later on WTC 7 just for you!!

Be back later of to WORK ON A SITE!!!!!

lol im tired .. going to bed
speak to some demolition people that blow up buildings .. they will all tell you
what a controlled demolition look like

starred

reply to post by wmd_2008


You'd first have to prove a plane existed in the first place, and then demonstrate how it was able to slice through structural steel, and then show how it caused as much damage as a demolition.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

You'd first have to prove a plane existed in the first place

So first shaped charges in the Pentagon, now Holograms/CGI at the WTC?

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

...and then demonstrate how it was able to slice through structural steel, and then show how it caused as much damage as a demolition.

Try reading the NIST report. Or is this going to be like the Pentagon discussion where you misinterpret and misrepresent information in the report?

Which, by the way, you never even responded to when I pointed out that you were clearly wrong in your interpretation of a single image, despite the actual report detailing evidence that went along with everything you were saying should have happened.

reply to post by Tosskey

So first shaped charges in the Pentagon, now Holograms/CGI at the WTC?

What is it with you and your penchant to get ahead of yourself. I'm not talking about the implications, I'm only talking about what is possible in the physical world. I prefer to focus on what's possible, and then base my speculations on that. The government claims a jet wing can cut the structural steel of the WTC. This is impossible, and if you read the earlier conversation you'll see why.

Even the Naudet film shows that the wing passed into the building without leaving a mark on the face of the building (impossible), with the gash being carved by explosives afterward.

If you'd like to speculate, then based on the above facts, what can explain how the TeeVee showed a jet wing slicing into a steel structure without leaving a mark?

Try reading the NIST report. Or is this going to be like the Pentagon discussion where you misinterpret and misrepresent information in the report?

Again? Each time I do that I get more ammunition to use against you guys. Maybe you should read it...it's full of contradictions and impossibilities. I have no idea why you lean on it as proof of anything except how ridiculous your position is.

Which, by the way, you never even responded to when I pointed out that you were clearly wrong in your interpretation of a single image, despite the actual report detailing evidence that went along with everything you were saying should have happened

Being wrong is part of the deal when posting information...is that why you do so so rarely? If I'm wrong, I'll admit it...part of why I post information is to check my work; two heads are better than one, y'know? Anyway, what post didn't I respond to?

Originally posted by ANOK

All buildings must be at built to at least a x2 safety factor, which means the building can hold its own twice over.

Can you show a link to prove that because I have never heard of such a thing?
I know engineers have to show it will hold up to the design specs. But I have never heard it has to be twice the design spec.

Are you saying the building should be able to withstand the impact of a plane twice the size of a B707? Or maybe it should be able to withstand 2 B707 impacts?
Are you saying that the first floor of WTC should be able to hold up the weight of two WTCs above it?

From my construction experience YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Originally posted by FDNY343
Let us see how much it leans.

It sure does when you use a proper camera angle. You can't see the lean in that video. Do you think I made that picture on my laptop over the weekend? Horse****.

BTW, why doesn't your video show the collapse of the Penthouses? Does that mean they were not really there?

Cool! Someone alert the press!! The MASSIVE Eastern Mechanical Penthouse DIDN'T EXIST!!!

Listen, I am not here to convince or convert. You are free to believe what you want to believe, but there is no need to be so angry about it.

If only the U.S government were as willing to provide photographic/video evidence to back up the Official version, then there would be no need for forums like this.

You think it's a nonsense conspiracy? The U.S government are just adding weight by refusing to release footage proving the 9/11 Official version.

After all, seeing is believing and the more reluctant they are, the more people will disbelieve.

Nice Dodge!! That thing got a Hemi in there???

Why don't you answer the questions I posed to you?

Thanks.

No dodge here pal. You have chosen to ignore my question about the BBC announcing that WTC7 had collapsed a full twenty minutes before it was pulled.

All I will say that getting so angry about things will bring on stress, stress leads to all types of illness, so if you believe you are right, who do you need to convince?

The building was pulled a term used in the demolition business, gee even the lease holder admitted a decsion to 'pull it' was made. This couldn't be done in the period of time involved unless there were explosives already in place. Peace.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by wmd_2008
at 550c steel has lost half its strength!

Can you explain why that matters, or are you just repeating something that you think makes sense?

If ALL the steel used to construct the towers lost half its strength it would still stand. Do you know why? Have you ever heard of a safety factor? All buildings must be at built to at least a x2 safety factor, which means the building can hold its own twice over.

Well for structural fixings engineers look for at least 3:1 if its plastic type frame fixings 7:1 I know I test them for architects and engineers on site and sometimes to destruction.

So lets look at your safety factor 2:1 we will work with that so what happens if the fire reduces that by half your still ok but YOU forgot the damage done by the PLANE! see what I mean by you guys looking at individual parts of the puzzle on their own!

Dont forget

IMPACT DAMAGE
FUEL EXPLODES
FIRE DAMAGE



Cardington Fire Test OBVIOUSLY YOU DIDN'T READ THE REPORTS!!!

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...|#18

Lets look at some data from above site select temp data on page above.

At random I selected from the list

Office Fire Edge beam grid line 4 location b2 that opens spreadsheet PRO6.XLS

Data from that

TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES CENTIGRADE
STEEL BEAM



40 mins 786c lower flange 655c web * 554c upper flange

So after 40 mins 786 c 655c 554c

Lets LOOK at the strength v temp graph again.



At 786c the lower flange is at 15% of full strength

So an office fire CAN get hot enough to cause problems!!!!!!!

After only 23 mins in this test the lower flange reached 552c 23 MINS so what do you think now?

reply to post by wmd_2008


You said you'd "look" at the bare minimum legal safety factor of 2:1, and then didn't mention it again in your post.

Theoretically losing 50% strength would still allow the column to remain within its yield strength given the 2:1 factor, even ignoring redistribution which would naturally and automatically occur.

Also not even NIST said the towers fell because all the columns were weakened by fire, so your point is ultimately moot if you are even trying to say this is why the towers actually fell. Not even the government agrees with that.

reply to post by Ben81


Has anyone noticed why the Japanese people haven't caused riots or looted stores like the blacks did during Katrina?

reply to post by Yankee451


I suggest You "BRUSH UP ON KINETIC ENERGY"

A little video for you



Lets reverse things what would happen if we put his arm across the 2 concrete blocks on the ground and dropped the concrete he breaks the same distance his elbow moves to break them, what would happen.

His arm can break the blocks, the blocks can break his arm think about that!!!

Originally posted by MrWhite665
reply to post by Ben81

 

Has anyone noticed why the Japanese people haven't caused riots or looted stores like the blacks did during Katrina?

because the japaneses know that their government will do more compare to the US gov ?

took 5 days to send water to the superdome
do you remember that ?

reply to post by wmd_2008

IMPACT DAMAGE
FUEL EXPLODES
FIRE DAMAGE

A much smaller volume of aluminum wing with a density rating of 2.8 can't slice through a much larger volume of laterally reinforced structural steel with a density rating of 7.8. KE would be equally distributed between the two bodies, relative to their density and mass.

reply to post by bsbray11


Sorry but your WRONG if the system is designed as 2:1 the system was weakened by the the fire to half its strength thing are still ok, BUT what about the steel damaged in the impact YOU dont have 100% of your steel to start with do you!!

See once again you only look at one part of the problem!

reply to post by wmd_2008


fly a plane in the top of the Eiffel tower
what do you think it will do ??

nothing
not even a scratch

reply to post by Yankee451


Whats stronger

steel or copper?

steel or aluminium ?

Lets see your answers