fire not hot enough to melt steel at wtc ? here's proof

hey all ,

im ALWAYS hearing that the fire was in no way hot enough to melt the steel and cause the wtc to collapse . well , here's some video proof of that happening . i'd say this has been posted before as proof of something else , but , it's clearly melting also , here's a direct link , just in case im doing something wrong .im new
to posting videos here .



video.google.com...[/gvid]

[edit on 5-4-2007 by gen.disaray]

Google Video Link

[edit on 5-4-2007 by gen.disaray]

It is the NIST, FEMA, PM, NOVA and the ASCE that reported the temperatures WERE NOT HOT ENOUGH TO MELT STEEL. It is part of The Official Story of 9/11™... not data provided from the "CTers". It is considered to be FACT by those on both sides of the argument that hydrocarbon fires cannot MELT steel.

You should really read their reports.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Pootie]

No steel melted. The temperatures were hot enough to weaken the non fireproofed steel eventually leading to the internal collapse. Anyone who tells you the steel melted is not firing on all cylinders.

THere is video of melted metal ejecting from the corner of one of the towers.

Originally posted by esdad71
No steel melted.

This may or may not be true according to photographic evidence.

The FACT is though... The hydrocarbon FIRES ALONE could not melt steel. They were not hot enough.

Hydrocarbon fires can't produce temps high enough to cause steel to sulfidate, but there were huge columns that suffered major sulfidation.

And the metal coming out of the side of the building had to be iron or steel. If you think anything else (that would have been at the towers, anyway) glows like that in broad daylight at only 600 or 700 C, you're an idiot, and that's all there is to it. This isn't some mystery science, people heat and melt metals all the time. Aluminum stays silvery at 600-700C unless you're in a dark room with it, and that's with no exposure to air to cool it (which also makes it stay silvery). Again, if you don't believe this, then look it up. I don't know what else I could possibly say.



Btw, to the OP: Hundreds of years of science say open-air fires do not melt iron or steel. When you see it molten there, that's the clue that something else was going on, not that hundreds of years of science are completely wrong.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by bsbray11]

It did not have to melt the steel. It only had to weaken it. The buckling of the fllors caused stress on the outer columns that they were attached to. The bowing eventually caused the outer frame of the building to snap, basically taking away all support for that split second. The remaining 10+ floors then fell and the weight could not be supported by the rest of the frame of the building. The interior then collpased pulling parts of the tower down, while most of the top was dispersed during the collaspe.

This is the easiet way to explain it.

I think when NIST did their experiments, they found they could only get "3" inches of warping, but somehow they jumped to over 40 inches of warping with the towers, 40 I believe is what you would need.


But besides all of this, there is something that keeps getting ignored in regards to the fires. It is my understanding that Super Tall Sky Scrapers have a lot of wind further up.

Wouldn't that actually cool the fires?

The other question would be, if the fires were really that hot, then why do we see people standing in the gaping wounds of the impact points??

Shouldn't it be too hot for them?

Most of those pictures were right before they jumped. THere are videos that show the internal bowing and the snap that occured.

Originally posted by talisman
But besides all of this, there is something that keeps getting ignored in regards to the fires. It is my understanding that Super Tall Sky Scrapers have a lot of wind further up.

Wouldn't that actually cool the fires?

I think that high wind speed would fuel the fire and increase the 'spread rate'.

Originally posted by esdad71
Most of those pictures were right before they jumped. THere are videos that show the internal bowing and the snap that occured.

I am sorry, but could you post a link to this supposed video?

Originally posted by sanctum

Originally posted by talisman
But besides all of this, there is something that keeps getting ignored in regards to the fires. It is my understanding that Super Tall Sky Scrapers have a lot of wind further up.

Wouldn't that actually cool the fires?

I think that high wind speed would fuel the fire and increase the 'spread rate'.

Couldn't it actually perform both?

Add fuel to the fire to increase the spread & burn yet help to quickly cool off areas that have no material left to burn?

We use bellows to increase a fire's intensity, yet we also use them to cool things off too. I think it would have a lot to do with the situation & the wind speed, but I could see both results being produced.

If the wind speed got too intense then I think it would blow the fire out just like a match.

2PacSade-

The remaining 10+ floors then fell and the weight could not be supported by the rest of the frame of the building.

Please show me how those 10 floors caused the 70-80 floors beneath to collapse. The same 70-80 floors were holding up the 10 floors before so what changed in the 70-80 that only 10 floors could cause a global collapse?

Originally posted by sanctum
I think that high wind speed would fuel the fire and increase the 'spread rate'.

I guess that would depend on which direction the wind was blowing in (i.e. at the hole or not) and how many compromised windows there were.

Video evidence does not suggest that the wind cause a "forge" like forced air induction situation.

Originally posted by talisman
I think when NIST did their experiments, they found they could only get "3" inches of warping, but somehow they jumped to over 40 inches of warping with the towers, 40 I believe is what you would need.


But besides all of this, there is something that keeps getting ignored in regards to the fires. It is my understanding that Super Tall Sky Scrapers have a lot of wind further up.

Wouldn't that actually cool the fires?

Hundreds of years ago, people melted all sorts of metals, including iron, in wood and coal-fed fires which were made hotter by the introduction of air blown in through bellows. So no...wind would not necessarily cool the fire and may actually make it hotter.

Originally posted by etshrtslr
Please show me how those 10 floors caused the 70-80 floors beneath to collapse. The same 70-80 floors were holding up the 10 floors before so what changed in the 70-80 that only 10 floors could cause a global collapse?

The fact that when you go from a static load to a dynamic load, you're seeing a significant increase in the forces involved. It's much harder to stop a dynamic load than it is to hold up a static load.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Hundreds of years ago, people melted all sorts of metals, including iron, in wood and coal-fed fires which were made hotter by the introduction of air blown in through bellows. So no...wind would not necessarily cool the fire and may actually make it hotter.

As far as I'm aware this air has to be pre-heated.

Among the earliest contrivances employed for producing the movement of air under a small pressure were those used in Egypt during the Greek occupation. These depended upon the heating of the air, which, being raised in pressure and bulk, was made to force water out of closed vessels, the water being afterwards employed for moving some kind of mechanism. In the process of iron smelting there is still used in some parts of India an artificial blast, produced by a simple form of bellows made from the skins of goats; bellows of this kind probably represent one of the earliest contrivances used for producing currents of air.

www.1911encyclopedia.org...


If you blow in cool air, you're giving the fire an additional heat sink.

Don't forget the wind force on the weakened towers either. The molten metal could have been copper from the electric busbars.

mikell

Those would be some massive buses considering the small voltages that are used for digital devices. Consider your motherboard. If you melted all the copper in it, how much do you think you'd have?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The fact that when you go from a static load to a dynamic load, you're seeing a significant increase in the forces involved.

Guess what? The "resistance" increases proportionally.

You forget that the "normal" force only exerts as much as it has to, and no more, with static loads. There would also have been all those massive columns "pushing" back up on the falling mass every single inch of the way, not just at the floors.

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Don't forget the wind force on the weakened towers either. The molten metal could have been copper from the electric busbars.

mikell

Just one question. . . What made it molten? Are you talking from short circuits, etc.?

2PacSade-