For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: FyreByrd

I've seen something like this before.

While steel does melt at a much higher temp that what burning jet fuel can produce, the steel does not have to be melted to become structurally-compromised.

Good video.

I weld structural steel for a living. in fact, steel beams for skyscrapers and bridges to be exact.

Even just 150 F on a support column could buckle.
Steel has a cherry red thresh hold of about 800+F, that can easily bend a structural beam, or cause it to warp, especially if cold winds are also hitting the super hot steel, it will become brittle at that point.
Now imagine an impact from an airplane, a jet liner, compromising the structure already, then adding jet fuel, and all sorts of fuel like paper, desks, maybe natural gas, who knows what was running through the building, and on top of that the height of the building and the wind forcing oxygen rich air to the fuel and flames, melting point only needs to happen ONCE and a beam will give away.

originally posted by: opethPA
It seems like common sense to me but Conspiracy Theorists get stuck on the "jet fuel cant melt steel" idea.
For a collapse to occur it doesn't need to melt steel, it only needs to weaken it enough to make a collapse possible.

Regardless, steel reinforced columns do not collapse at free-fall speed. If the building tipped over it would be believable.

It's doesn't matter anyway. Israel got exactly what it wanted.

google "9/11 purim children"

originally posted by: lordcomac
Doesn't explain the pools of liquid metal in the rubble like, though...

of course, it was all shipped to China long before anyone could sample anything and get any real answers.

Basic laws of thermodynamics explain melting metal...pressure and friction, along with the fire, can generate enough temperature to cause the molten metal.

a reply to: strongfp

The problem is all the beams failing at once symmetrically is impossible.

originally posted by: Dwoodward85
a reply to: FyreByrd

I get what he is trying to do but you can't take the size, length and thickness of the piece of steel that he uses on it's own and compare it to a building the size of the twin towers. It would be like me taking a lolly stick (Eating the lolly first of course lol) and snapping it and saying now why can't I do this to a full size tree. It is thicker, it is attached to other pieces of steel, covered by fire proofing etc. I'm not saying they didn't bend or become weak or anything like that I'm just saying comparing the two doesn't fit.

If he were to say go to a condemned building that has similar steel frame as it did in the Towers and do the same thing then I'll tick off that question (about steel bending or whether the temperature was high enough etc) but a single thin piece of steel doesn't do it for me.

Plus his attitude kind of annoys me.

I'm sorry his 'attitude' 'annoys' you.

Your argument about 'scale' has some merit I agree.

However this video clearly demonstrates that 'it is possible' and scuttles the argument about 'melting points' entirely - which was precisely and specifically what he was attempting.

You are conflating other 'questions' ,as I call them, and you need to keep arguments of this type within a very narrow scope.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: FyreByrd

He uses his pinky to demonstrate how little force it takes to bend the 'plasticized' steel, now imagine the weight of ten acre floors of building pushing down on it.

Initiation of top down pancake collapse.

Problem with that , it happened at free fall speed. IMPOSSIBLE without help.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: lordcomac
Doesn't explain the pools of liquid metal in the rubble like, though...

of course, it was all shipped to China long before anyone could sample anything and get any real answers.

Basic laws of thermodynamics explain melting metal...pressure and friction, along with the fire, can generate enough temperature to cause the molten metal.

Particularly if that metal is aluminum instead of steel. The entire facades of the Twin Towers were made of aluminum.

Per Occam's Razor, assuming it is steel instead of aluminum requires several more assumptions in order to explain the phenomena (thermite, etc.). If it was aluminum, there are no extra assumptions required, because jet fuel burns hot enough to melt aluminum.

So would the temperature of burning rubble fueled by ordinary office materials.

Conclusion? Unless we make unwarranted assumptions, the molten metal was aluminum caused by the burning jet fuel and ensuing office fires. If we aren't trying to 'create a conspiracy theory', then there's no reason to jump toward unwarranted assumptions to make it work.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: strongfp

The problem is all the beams failing at once symmetrically is impossible.

No it's not.
You assume that the structure is 100% structurally sound, they don't weld all the beams together to make a building. Each beam is held together with bolts, and those bolts are made of a hardened steel, all it takes is enough force to snap them.

a reply to: butcherguy

How long do you need to heat carbon steel at 2800 f to bend a beam

originally posted by: errck

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: FyreByrd

He uses his pinky to demonstrate how little force it takes to bend the 'plasticized' steel, now imagine the weight of ten acre floors of building pushing down on it.

Initiation of top down pancake collapse.

Problem with that , it happened at free fall speed. IMPOSSIBLE without help.

Thats called gravity.

originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: butcherguy

How long do you need to heat carbon steel at 2800 f to bend a beam

The trusses (with all the insulation blown off) began to sag under the weight, failed at the anchors.

Took :56 minutes.

a reply to: Dwoodward85

I agree about his attitude, this guy had some issues with slicing off a dudes nose at a party showing off recently.

Thay said he was drunk

Aside from all that, yes its absolutely possible to heat metal up to under 2000 F and bend it like plastic. Try a campfire and some rebar, it will take time without a forge or higher fuel source, but the temp is whats important.

originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: butcherguy

How long do you need to heat carbon steel at 2800 f to bend a beam

You don't need to even reach a temperature even close to that to bend a steel beam.
You can bend a 100,000 foot steel beam with only 500 degrees in a two inch portion of it.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: butcherguy

How long do you need to heat carbon steel at 2800 f to bend a beam

The trusses (with all the insulation blown off) began to sag under the weight, failed at the anchors.

Took :56 minutes.

Because NIST recreated this and nothing collapsed after 2hrs.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: opethPA
It seems like common sense to me but Conspiracy Theorists get stuck on the "jet fuel cant melt steel" idea.
For a collapse to occur it doesn't need to melt steel, it only needs to weaken it enough to make a collapse possible.

Regardless, steel reinforced columns do not collapse at free-fall speed. If the building tipped over it would be believable.

It's doesn't matter anyway. Israel got exactly what it wanted.

google "9/11 purim children"

Great..
I must be missing the other times in history that the same types of planes with the same types of fuel hit the same types of building's in the past letting you know it shouldn't have happened the way it did or tipped over the way you think it would.

It boils down to this would it be easier to make a massive conpiracy and plant bombs etc or just let some nut bars slip through and do their thing?

If it was a conspiracy the easy thing would be just ignore bin Laden and let it happen. In fact when jfk was president the Cia allegedly asked him to sign off on a plan to blow up a plane and blame it on the cubans.

Much simpler. If it fails doesn't leave evidence.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: strongfp

The problem is all the beams failing at once symmetrically is impossible.

Your problem is you omit the kinetic energy build-up....momentum as the higher steel-therefore higher temperatured for a longer period of time gives in first. then the kinetic energy of that steel on the lower steel.....on and on.

originally posted by: errck

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: butcherguy

How long do you need to heat carbon steel at 2800 f to bend a beam

The trusses (with all the insulation blown off) began to sag under the weight, failed at the anchors.

Took :56 minutes.

Because NIST recreated this and nothing collapsed after 2hrs.

Right, so they built an exact replica of the WTC, flew a jet liner into it, and recorded the results?

I am sorry, but comparing a small scale 'test' to a 100+ story sky scraper that was hit by a jet liner, is apples to oranges.

a reply to: dfnj2015
There is a report on how the building failure occurred, and it was a sandwich 'effect' also on the twin towers the structural steel was on the outer walls not the inside.