For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

a reply to: opethPA

I think the jet fuel arguments stem from the molten metal found at ground zero.

originally posted by: manuelram16
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.

Yes and no.
Support columns were built on the inside, and outside, it allowed more floor space.
Now that I think about it, it allowed for more concrete to be poured, which would lead to even more weight. Makes sense.

Either way, the original WTC towers were heavily dependent on it's support columns and not the over all structure. Compromise a column and you are in a world of trouble for at least a section, compromise a dozen or so, it's disastrous.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I get that it is possible. I wouldn't say it was impossible what I was trying to say is that the beam that he held was very small and thin, the beams that were used in the towers would've been very VERY thick and held together with other beams and they to would've been very VERY thick which is why I don't agree with his experiment and as to the other questions, those were just me pointing out questions that I think are more important to answer simply because we don't have access to those same steel beams because (apparently and this is insane if true) they sent the majority of the steel off to China and other countries (that's not true surely?) but I get what you mean about questions being put in narrow scope I was just trying to show questions that I'd rather have answers to.

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.

So what about all the steel that was not compromised by heat.

#2 fell in 56 minutes! #1 fell in 85 minutes!

1975 WTC #1 fire burned for 3 hours on the 11th floor while spreading to many floors. This fire was more intense (hotter), and suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Some of you may remember the bridge collapse in Atlanta that took out a huge section of Interstate 85 N early in 2017 .

The fuel for that fire was plastic tubing. The construction was massive concrete and steel supports.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Must have been the same black ops group trying to mess up the Braves game.

The real issue as I see it, is as follows; Most of the jet fuel burned up on impact. It started fires in the offices, desks paper etc. Office furnishings do not burn very hot. The steel in those buildings was massive, the central columns were feet thick and many hundreds of feet tall. The amount of heat that the steel structure could absorb before it reaches a dangerous temperature is enormous.
Furthermore the damaged or weakened steel would be at or above the impact point, all the steel below that point was undamaged. There is zero chance the upper floors could fall through all those undamaged lower floors. Fire had nothing to do with the towers collapsing.

originally posted by: strongfp

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.

Yes. You don't even have to heat steel to bend it, given enough force.

a reply to: butcherguy

I wonder how much heat started just from the metal bending alone?

originally posted by: xdriver14
The real issue as I see it, is as follows; Most of the jet fuel burned up on impact. It started fires in the offices, desks paper etc. Office furnishings do not burn very hot. The steel in those buildings was massive, the central columns were feet thick and many hundreds of feet tall. The amount of heat that the steel structure could absorb before it reaches a dangerous temperature is enormous.
Furthermore the damaged or weakened steel would be at or above the impact point, all the steel below that point was undamaged. There is zero chance the upper floors could fall through all those undamaged lower floors. Fire had nothing to do with the towers collapsing.

Well Put !!!

originally posted by: xdriver14
The real issue as I see it, is as follows; Most of the jet fuel burned up on impact. It started fires in the offices, desks paper etc. Office furnishings do not burn very hot. The steel in those buildings was massive, the central columns were feet thick and many hundreds of feet tall. The amount of heat that the steel structure could absorb before it reaches a dangerous temperature is enormous.
Furthermore the damaged or weakened steel would be at or above the impact point, all the steel below that point was undamaged. There is zero chance the upper floors could fall through all those undamaged lower floors. Fire had nothing to do with the towers collapsing.

This guy gets it.


Even if the supports were severed the entire bottom half of the building was still intact and providing resistance. So basically the 2 towers fell to the path of greatest resistance deifying physics. The only way to make the building fall the way they did is to destroy the resistance below the severed area by demolition.

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.

NIST footage of collapse initiation... showing it began on the floors compromised by the impact, unchecked fires, and weight of upper stories. At fifty six minutes after first impact...
Another angle:

Gentlemen,

Once the initial failure occurred in the Twin Towers, it was game over. The steel that is farther below the impact points does not need to be heated in order to fail, once the failure at the impact points allowed the entire span of floors above it to come crashing down - that force alone crushed everything beneath it, all the way down as it continued.

So in summary, the steel did not have to 'melt', it merely had to fail. Once that happened, the force exerted by the mass above was too much to bear.

Someone brought up the fact that the 2nd tower to be hit fell more quickly than the 1st. Do you know why?

Because the 2nd tower was hit substantially lower - which means more floors, more mass, was pushing down on the impact point of that tower while the steel was being heated at the impact point. It is perfectly consistent with, wait for it - a top down collapse caused by the impact of the planes and ensuing fires.

Conversely, what is the 'controlled demolition' explanation for why the 2nd tower to be hit collapsed first? The demolition team forgot which building they were supposed to blow up first, and hit the wrong button?

This is not hard to understand, unless you're hell-bent on believing in a government conspiracy, and try to twist yourself in knots to make it work.

If you do not believe me, watch the video of the collapse of the Twin Towers. Once the collapse starts, pick a floor farther down and keep your eyes on it. Is it already falling too, or does it stay in place until the mass of debris reaches it, and crushes it as well?

It stays right there, until it gets crushed. The buildings are intact below the level of collapse, until it reaches those floors and crushes them as well.

Conversely, WTC7 did not collapse like that (for whomever said all three collapses were the same, earlier in the thread).

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.

Please stick to the topic.

originally posted by: xdriver14
The real issue as I see it, is as follows; Most of the jet fuel burned up on impact. It started fires in the offices, desks paper etc. Office furnishings do not burn very hot. The steel in those buildings was massive, the central columns were feet thick and many hundreds of feet tall. The amount of heat that the steel structure could absorb before it reaches a dangerous temperature is enormous.
Furthermore the damaged or weakened steel would be at or above the impact point, all the steel below that point was undamaged. There is zero chance the upper floors could fall through all those undamaged lower floors. Fire had nothing to do with the towers collapsing.

Not entirely.

The conspiracy focuses on the steel only. But you are ignoring the millions of tons of concrete, glass, wire, building materials, etc. and non structural steel on the weight of the support columns. Also, I said before, when the iron workers put up a building they don't weld it together, it's more of less bolted together. By brittle hardened bolts and rivets.

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"

Again, this 'question' is not about free fall, please feel free to start another thread.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: strongfp

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

Not what the video was about. Please stay on topic/

originally posted by: xdriver14
The real issue as I see it, is as follows; Most of the jet fuel burned up on impact. It started fires in the offices, desks paper etc. Office furnishings do not burn very hot. The steel in those buildings was massive, the central columns were feet thick and many hundreds of feet tall. The amount of heat that the steel structure could absorb before it reaches a dangerous temperature is enormous.

I think this is an extravagant set of assertions. How hot do you think a fire is? A simple candle flame can be around 1,000 Celsius (no, that's not a typo, it really is "one thousand") and that's drawing on a tiny wick and a superficial amount of tallow at any given moment.

Here's what an office fire looks like, and how it spreads. Things really get going at around the three-minute mark, but bear in mind that in the case of the WTC the fire didn't have to slowly break out in one corner of the room and then spread bit by bit.



Also recall that heat is famous for rising. And that fires that started on one floor would soon spark fires on the floors above. You can see this process occurring if you look at the various 9/11 videos. A pair of smoking "Wile E. Coyote"-style plane-shaped holes at the start of the attack has turned the entire upper floors of WTC 1&2 into multi-storey smoke-billowing emergency beacons by just before the towers each collapse.

It's true that different kinds of fires can behave in different ways, but claiming that 'office furniture doesn't burn very hot' is, frankly, a completely ridiculous thing to say. Go try it on your local fire department, and ask why they don't save money on expensive call-out equipment by turning up to office fires in aprons and oven-gloves and armed with a bucket of sand instead. I'll be interested to hear how they respond to you.

originally posted by: blackaspirin

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.

The facade may have been aluminum - but that is irrelevant to the question addressed by the video.

Please don't stray from the topic.