I'm pretty sure this building is going to collapse - Sharjah Skyscraper!

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by 4hero

 

Why not input some real evidence instead of childish remarks! You're bringing the tone of the thread down.

Oh, Is this a 911 thread now? I thought it was of a burning tower in Dubai...

But since you challenge everyone on here about their Childish Tones (whatever that means)... I got one or two for you:
Go to your kitchen and take out a blender and fill it with steel girders, car sized blocks of cement and broken glass. Hold the lid down and turn it on... how loud is that?
Or...
Raise a 2 foot thick cement floor the size of an acre to a height of 12(?) feet, and drop it all at once. Now, how loud was that? Do that a hundred times and you think the noise of any "demolitions" would be drowned out?

The loudest booms that day were the impacts of the planes, or do you think that was the faked part and your mysterious collapse sounds the reality? Lemmee guess...

Yes it is a 9/11 thread, it's in the 9/11 forum! D'oh! Silly you for not checking! Also, it was posted as a comparison to the WTC buildings! Do try and keep up with the pace! You've obviously just come on shift and jumped in at the deep end, and opened your mouth before checking! D'oh!

Wow! What school of silliness did you OS 'fakers' go to?! You lot talk some mumbo jumbo! Please, intellectual & factual discussions, not odd ball analogies that bare zero relevance to the topic.

reply to post by 4hero


Jet fuel... let's look at wiki it takes 3 seconds... ready? I'll post then link you...

Typical physical properties for Jet A and Jet A-1

Jet A-1 Fuel must meet the specification for DEF STAN 91-91 (Jet A-1), ASTM specification D1655 (Jet A-1) and IATA Guidance Material (Kerosine Type), NATO Code F-35.

Jet A Fuel must reach ASTM specification D1655 (Jet A) [5]

Typical physical properties for Jet A / Jet A-1 fuel:
Jet A-1 Jet A
Flash point 42 °C 51.1 °C
Autoignition temperature 210 °C (410 °F)[7]
Freezing point −47 °C (−52.6 °F) −40 °C (−40 °F)
Open air burning temperatures 260-315 °C (500-599 °F)[7]
Density at 15 °C (59 °F) .804 kg/L .820 kg/L
Specific energy 43.15 MJ/kg 43.02 MJ/kg
Energy density 34.7 MJ/L 35.3 MJ/L

en.wikipedia.org...

Melting temperature of structural steel

Thermal properties

The properties of steel vary widely, depending on its alloying elements.

The austenizing temperature, the temperature where a steel transforms to an austenite crystal structure, for steel starts at 900 °C (1,650 °F) for pure iron, then, as more carbon is added, the temperature falls to a minimum 724 °C (1,335 °F) for eutectic steel (steel with only .83% by weight of carbon in it). As 2.1% carbon (by mass) is approached, the austenizing temperature climbs back up, to 1,130 °C (2,070 °F). Similarly, the melting point of steel changes based on the alloy.

The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt, its solidus, is 1,130 °C (2,070 °F). Steel never turns into a liquid below this temperature. Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F). 'Steel' with more than 2.1% Carbon is no longer Steel, but is known as Cast iron.[5]

wiki en.wikipedia.org...

another site

Carbon Steel 1425 - 1540 2600 - 2800
Stainless Steel 1510 2750

link www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

www.debunking911.com...

9eleven.info...

investigate911.org... arch-and-Rescue-911-WTC.jpg

i.ytimg.com...

s3.amazonaws.com...

2.bp.blogspot.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Hmmmm... The second video is from cnn... not to mention I've seen this on tv when it was on. As well, these images exist all over the net... on both sides... There were arguments for the original story trying to claim the aircraft aluminum some how melded with rust to form thermite. It was quickly abandoned due to the fact, both components have to be of exact quantities and mixed evenly to work effectively... I've also heard it was molten aluminum,

Aluminum 660 1220

refer to this link again, then the temperature of burning jet fuel....

www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

Not even close guys not even close

Now the theory that all the smoke was from materials from the office material, okay maybe so but jet fuel, irregardless of amount. Not hot enough, the office materials burn even cooler than the hydrocarbons.... So explain, the OS denies molten metal, the news showed it.... on live television, are you awake yet? Do you feel the wool receding? can you see a little clearer? How about your hearing? Did a great big ball of cotton with bushes name on it fall out yet? I didn't use conspiracy sites to back up my sources. Yes some of those photos came from conspiracy sites, but they were the first few I grabbed from a google image search. Do the exact same, Molten metal 9/11 they are hosted on all sorts of sites. Molten metal world trade center, similar results... I'm not trying to spew false crap.

here's a neat wiki.... en.wikipedia.org...

"The organization is collecting signatures for a petition that demands an independent investigation with subpoena power of the September 11 attacks, specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and 7 WTC.[2][12] By March 2011, nearly 1,500 architectural and engineering professionals"

Wow 1500 architectural and engineering professionals think the same # we're all talking about, I've seen other sites with much bigger figures, this is just a reputable source...

Originally posted by Ilyich
reply to post by 4hero

 

Jet fuel... let's look at wiki it takes 3 seconds... ready? I'll post then link you...

Typical physical properties for Jet A and Jet A-1

Jet A-1 Fuel must meet the specification for DEF STAN 91-91 (Jet A-1), ASTM specification D1655 (Jet A-1) and IATA Guidance Material (Kerosine Type), NATO Code F-35.

Jet A Fuel must reach ASTM specification D1655 (Jet A) [5]

Typical physical properties for Jet A / Jet A-1 fuel:
Jet A-1 Jet A
Flash point 42 °C 51.1 °C
Autoignition temperature 210 °C (410 °F)[7]
Freezing point −47 °C (−52.6 °F) −40 °C (−40 °F)
Open air burning temperatures 260-315 °C (500-599 °F)[7]
Density at 15 °C (59 °F) .804 kg/L .820 kg/L
Specific energy 43.15 MJ/kg 43.02 MJ/kg
Energy density 34.7 MJ/L 35.3 MJ/L

en.wikipedia.org...

Why are you posting about jet fuel when no planes really crashed that day?!

PS: The molton metal was cause by a deliberate incendiary.

Since this topic seems to be heading into an abyss, I thought I would include my 2 cents before it is too late. www.emporis.com...

Please look at the date and watch the fire move from the top of the building , down. This is a residential building. www.youtube.com...

This Dubai building still used 55,000 tonnes of steel in the construction.

Where did that tidbit come from.

Wow hope everyone got out ok.

* * * * * * * * A T T E N T I O N * * * * * * * * * *

The thread topic is the Sharjah Skyscraper -- as compared with those in the events surrounding 9/11. Please stop the sniping and personal comments. In other words, debate, discuss, but be civil.

Thanks!

reply to post by 4hero

Wow! What school of silliness did you OS 'fakers' go to?! You lot talk some mumbo jumbo! Please, intellectual & factual discussions, not odd ball analogies that bare zero relevance to the topic.

Yah OK on the forum... my bad.

What in my post made you think I am a "Faker"? Maybe you are to busy answering every challenge before reading them? Take a brake... go for a walk, then reread a few. Nobody is always right.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Umm, irregardless of this building, concrete crumbles when you heat it. Little known fact, part of what gives concrete it's strength is the water it holds bonded with in itself....

"Concrete is a composite construction material composed primarily of aggregate, cement and water. There are many formulations that have varied properties. The aggregate is generally a coarse gravel or crushed rocks such as limestone, or granite, along with a fine aggregate such as sand. The cement, commonly Portland cement, and other cementitious materials such as fly ash and slag cement, serve as a binder for the aggregate. Various chemical admixtures are also added to achieve varied properties. Water is then mixed with this dry composite which enables it to be shaped (typically poured) and then solidified and hardened into rock-hard strength through a chemical process known as hydration. The water reacts with the cement which bonds the other components together, eventually creating a robust stone-like material."

"Concrete can be damaged by many processes, such as the expansion of corrosion products of the steel reinforcement bars, freezing of trapped water, fire or radiant heat, aggregate expansion, sea water effects, bacterial corrosion, leaching, erosion by fast-flowing water, physical damage and chemical damage (from carbonation, chlorides, sulfates and distillate water)."

en.wikipedia.org...

Again, a 3 second wiki search demolishes your concrete is more resistant to fire than steel. The only time concrete buildings are as resilient as they are is when they are reinforced with steel inside, wait a minute... what's that? Steel inside? Guess what WTC1&2's steel frame had to add fire safety ? That's right concrete! As well, the only steel frame buildings to collapse due to fire are WTC1&2!!! I know the argument with the original story is every building is different but everything about these buildings should have fared a much different result... Much much much different result.. Jet fuel, it's just not hot enough. Not even hot enough to destroy the concrete.. It would take a much larger spread, and much longer burn time to damage the steel or the concrete. As well, the structure is much like a pyramid.


I I I I
I I I I
II II II II
IIIIII IIIIII

As the structure rises, less material is needed to hold the floors above, at the ground level, the strongest structures are in place to support the many floors above. As well, the WTC used a box frame core, the idea being that not only is the weight distributed evenly, but by placing many cubes on top of one another the massive weights involved are supported with relative ease. Buildings are not designed to hold their weight, and their weight alone. They tend to be built in a manner the exceed the load, as well as any additional stresses due to environmental factors, natural causes and failures with in the structure. So even if some of the supports were damaged the entire building would still remain standing. The same principle is more easily explained with a pyramid, as the structure rises, less material is required to hold up the material above. The pyramids have lasted for a disputed but lengthy time.

images of much more damaged buildings still standing... I know they are concrete, which should say something for the steel..

www.free-photos.biz...

assets.nydailynews.com...!/img/httpImage/image.jpg
www.sciencephoto.com...

As well, the world trade centers have the inner structure(box frame) as well as an outer structure. I still don't understand how all the elevators contained in the box frame could be destroyed by an aluminum plane colliding with many support beams of steel, not to mention the outer frame of the building intended to break up and withstand an impact of a 707. This is on camera with WTC architect.

911review.org...

911research.wtc7.net...

youtu.be...

okay and here is the infamous video I've been searching for guys... Okay, your move. No conspiracy sites.. All google, all credible sources. I can't find a legit schematic diagram, but one it's either hidden, or owned by the architect/business. I mean other than exposing the strengths/weaknesses to everyone it could be stolen by another company. I wait for an educated rebuttal.

reply to post by 4hero


All the OSers keep bringing it up, gotta give them the facts they seem to be overlooking.

Not to mention the points mentioned here in...

youtu.be...

reply to post by intrptr


Go through and read my posts, I've given you evidence and a logical approach. Original story just isn't right, with what I've proposed and if you search what is said yourself it doesn't fit.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by 4hero

 

Wow! What school of silliness did you OS 'fakers' go to?! You lot talk some mumbo jumbo! Please, intellectual & factual discussions, not odd ball analogies that bare zero relevance to the topic.

Yah OK on the forum... my bad.

What in my post made you think I am a "Faker"? Maybe you are to busy answering every challenge before reading them? Take a brake... go for a walk, then reread a few. Nobody is always right.

You obviously failed to read the post by the mod above your post.

I am replying to the people that are either talking crap, or who reply to me. So no, you are very wrong, I do not answer every challenge before reading them. Thats' a cheap comment from somone who never read the thread or what forum they were in? BTW, I do not need a walk thanks, I'm working from home, and I take recess breaks from my work to reply to people that have spoken to me in this forum.

A 'faker' is someone who backs the OS whilst offering zero evidence. The opposite of a 'truther'.

So, lets get back on topic. Do you think this Dubai building should have collapsed due to the fire?

reply to post by Ilyich

Thanks for all the data. I was wondering... did all that mean you think the temps were not high enough for the collapse to initiate? Where it did? If so...

Add the winds aloft rushing in the hole made by the plane and "venturing" thru the floors with fire on them. That is kind of like a blast furnace, no? Raising temps? All the glass was blown out so the resulting "fire storm" unchecked for an hour or more and fed by steady winds aloft. Result: blast furnace inside the buildings. We of course couldn't see that from the ground a quarter mile away.

And whatever spheroids of metal were formed during the fall to the ground... just like raindrops from a cloud. They are round too? Of course the molten drops may have cooled by the time they fell a 1000 feet and landed like little balls of various alloys of metal. No?

Just thought I would bring those two...

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

This Dubai building still used 55,000 tonnes of steel in the construction.

Where did that tidbit come from.

edit on 4/30/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: keepin it classy.

Haha, edited to keep it classy! Yay, you're going to stop lowering the tone, I salute that.

To answer the question you removed when editing your comment, what I stated were facts, facts are real.

Where did the 55,000 tonnes of steel info about the Dubai building come from, that was from their official website, and it's also on wiki if you would like to take a look...

reply to post by 4hero


No it shouldn't have and it didn't. End of story.