Remembering 9/11

[bluedragon]

First off, having an understanding of combustion, is elementary in understanding how the burning fuel heated the structural steel and caused the building to collapse. My experience included steel heat treatment furnaces and the like. I do know that steel will dissolve in materials like zinc when the interface temperature reaches 420°C. That is also true for Aluminium, the steel will dissolve into the Al liquid when the liquid temperature of the Al goes above 452 °C. The liquid that you reported pouring out of one of the towers, was more likely a Al-Fe phase liquid.

Secondly, did 95% of the fuel ignite when the planes crashed into the buildings? Probably not. Most combustion that occurs is gaseous and not liquid or solid combustion, although both liquid and solid combustion do occur. Steel rusting is a form of combustion. Turn the steel into very fine powder, it will spontaneously begin to burn as it heats up. That is one of the problems that occur when you remove a gas filter from a high-pressure gas transmission pipeline if you do not place the removed filter, filled with iron powder, into a water bath to stop the air interacting with the iron powder.

Thirdly, fatigue also played a part in the collapse of the building. The wind shear of the building causes the building to sway, thereby, introducing a cyclic stress on the beams, columns and connection bolts. As these items heated up over a period of time after the crashes of the plane into the buildings, the allowable maximum stresses where there is a superimposed cyclic stress on top of the design stresses decreases as the UTS falls off rapidly after the steel members heat up.

Perhaps, you should listen to people with better expertise to explain what went down during the 9/11 event. It was a demonic spiritual attack, that was seen all around the world in real time, which is a part of the Rev. 16:12-16 prophecy. Or perhaps you have not put all of the facts together to come to this understanding.

Sadly, many Christians have not perceived this fact as well.

Shalom

I think I'd look at this report. Interesting concept from Architects and Engineers that didn't believe the building would collapse.

• The report actually focuses on the welded and bolted connections between structural members. They are not specifically tested for fire resistance.
  
  One building in the World Trade Center complex suffered a partial collapse because the connectors failed due to the extreme heat.
  
  The leader of the team that wrote the report for FEMA and the engineering society, Dr. Gene Corley, thinks the connector issue is important.
  
  
• W. GENE CORLEY, Structural Engineer:
  
  The fire test requires you to test just the span of the beam, not the locations where it's connected into the rest of the building.
  
  
• I've worked steel for years ....Never thought of tests on the connectors.
• Having pushed for wind pressure tests. This makes sense ...No tests done on the connectors at all. If those connectors let go, all bets are off.

The report also states that FURNITURE, CARPET, FILES and the interior of the aircraft could not withstand 3,000 gallons of jet fuel. Most of that was the ball of flame .... But the fires on the floors penetrated drove the survivors to the windows. The Towers had some of the most elaborate fire suppression systems in the world ...However, they were severed on the hit at impact.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That building was designed to withstand a 707 hitting the building at 500 knots. That's insane. When I first saw the

Well those were teh specs and simulations showed.

Structural engineer describes what went wrong inside the World Trade Center on Sept. 11: 12/01

Maybe it's time to expand your diligent study. It's lacking in reality.

1. Fire retardant was difficult, if not impossible to apply to the floor joists.

2. I'll say it again ...the damage involved several floors not one. The penetration of the planes went across two or more floors with each collision. The lower hit collapsed first, because the weight of the upper floors descended downward when the floor joists buckled. Tons more material.

This is a study done by somjeone who did not examine blueprints architectual designs etc. and was simply giving an after accident report. It creates more questions than it answers.

What type of structures does he engineer? There are over 100 structural engineers who design and build high rise structures who went on public record that trash this kind of flimsy reporting by someone.

Yes the planes damaged several floors and blew out key support columsn- but teh laws of physics state that unless a force equal to or greater than the weakness caused by the support columns on one side of the building is applied, a building will not free fall in on itself but tip in the direction of the destroyed columsn- that has been proven 100% of the time!

Steel does not burn! Jet fuel will not even heart up to 1,000 degrees for more than a moment or so. Jet fuel in concentration like this would explode. Teh resulting quick change in smoke color from whitish (after teh initial explosion) to near black shows those fires, even though whipped by winds were fuel starved!

I don't care what myths are out there ....There is not a building in the world designed to ward off a 707 coming in at 500 knots ...

You are debating construction and engineering experts here, not a lay person observation. Read the post mortem study and at least discover a more professional view ....Those buildings, if you have ever been in one that tall, are designed to sway ....they don't topple like a tree in the backyard. I know first hand because I suffer from motion sickness and have become motion sick during earthquakes as the buildings swayed. They simply won't topple over as you claimed.

Are you that expert or are you quoting experts.

I am not in construction nor an engineer. But I have watched videos and read reports form experts in all the fields that would be incvolved in a collapse like this. Like I said AEA for 9/11 truth, with over 15,000 expert signatories all said that this guy you quote is lying!

Hundreds of them did inspections on site!

All you need do is go online and simply look up the temperature construction steel begins to melt- it is well above 1,000F.

Also physicists have shown that the buildings could not have fallen at free fall speed all the way to the ground! Given that the damaged portions above started from a dead stop and simply fell, there was not enough inertia, mass or weight to collapse the buildings!

Then there is also the huge problem of building 7 that fell mush much later. It was a 67 story building, was not hit by a plane, was only hit by shrapnel, had no support columns destroyed. It met the fire resistant codes of NYC (fire retardant materials on all support steel, fire retardant building materials, fire retardant furnishings etc.) and yet it fell exactly as a preplanned demolition drop falls. That is just impossible with out explosives. this is all from fire prevention experts, structural engineers and designers of high rises, chemists, physicists.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

First off, having an understanding of combustion, is elementary in understanding how the burning fuel heated the structural steel and caused the building to collapse. My experience included steel heat treatment furnaces and the like. I do know that steel will dissolve in materials like zinc when the interface temperature reaches 420°C. That is also true for Aluminium, the steel will dissolve into the Al liquid when the liquid temperature of the Al goes above 452 °C. The liquid that you reported pouring out of one of the towers, was more likely a Al-Fe phase liquid.

Well that is all well and good in a lab, but there was no zinc at the WTC. also aluminum melts at 1200F And no steel will not dissolve in zinc at 420C, the zinc melts but not the steel, especially structural steel.

And while the liquid may have been an aluminum iron mixture (though that is not liekly) it takes a furnace at 1200F to melt the aluminum and a furnace at 2500F to melt structural steel. As there was no furnace, no fuel to combine with the winds to create heats that hoit for the length of time needed- all you say is true, but not relavent to the WTC.

Secondly, did 95% of the fuel ignite when the planes crashed into the buildings? Probably not. Most combustion that occurs is gaseous and not liquid or solid combustion, although both liquid and solid combustion do occur. Steel rusting is a form of combustion. Turn the steel into very fine powder, it will spontaneously begin to burn as it heats up. That is one of the problems that occur when you remove a gas filter from a high-pressure gas transmission pipeline if you do not place the removed filter, filled with iron powder, into a water bath to stop the air interacting with the iron powder.

Well you can argue with the fire prevention experts and aviation experts and fuel experts who all went on public record stating that in a crash like occurred at the WTC 95% or more of the fuel is combusted within the first 30 seconds. If you choose to not believe them, then look at an archived video of the planes crashing in to teh building and then notice the massive fireball happen and how quickly that fireball dies! Then keep looking and see how quickly the fires die to just small flame fires and become more and more fuel starved.

Thirdly, fatigue also played a part in the collapse of the building. The wind shear of the building causes the building to sway, thereby, introducing a cyclic stress on the beams, columns and connection bolts. As these items heated up over a period of time after the crashes of the plane into the buildings, the allowable maximum stresses where there is a superimposed cyclic stress on top of the design stresses decreases as the UTS falls off rapidly after the steel members heat up.

Those factors are taken in to consideration when these special high rises are built! You should know that. The desings are done to take into account th ewinds and built to allow the building to sway with minimal to no wind fatigue. IOW they are designed to bend and not cause structural fatigue! You can look that up for any of the super high rises.

And the structural steel had it highest heat build up early. Once the fuel exploded off, there was not enough fuel to sustain high temperatures. That is shown in how quick the smoke goes from white to black after the initial explosions. So not there was no furnace effect like would be in a wood structure.

But let us theorize for a moment that all your lab theories are true of teh WTC. Physics have proven over and over and over and over and over ETC.ETC.ETC. ETC. that all things moving downward will find the path of least resistance to drop! And the path of least resistance in the damaged WTC buildings were the damaged quadrants where the planes crashed and damaged and destroyed the support columns. IOW Physics demands that those tops should have toppled to one side not straight down.

also as I explained to blue dragon, there is what is colloquially called the pancake effect of falling objects. As a building collapses form a zero speed start as the WTC did, for all material it crushes below it below it, it loses roughly the same amount of material from the object falling!

IOW one building would have stopped collapsing after after it crushed appriox 20 floors and the other about 50 floors MAXIMUM. Don't believe me? Do you rown experiments.

Build a popsicle stick house and support the top floor with unglued sticks that the floor rests on. Make it about 7 floors if you like. Then put a rock on the top floor, then remove one of the support saticks and see how far the rock falls before iit stops. See if it collapses straight down or doesn't lean one way! YOu will learn an importan truth about what the government hid about teh collapse of the three buildings at the WTC complex.

Then of course there is the insurmountable problem of building 7 which was not hit, had no explosion , only had minimal fires due to shrapnel and yet collapsed exactly like a building wired for collapse!

 

[bluedragon]

No one has said that steel melted. If you would read before jumping to conclusions and distance the myths you've seen by the conspiracy nuts...Steel under intense heat warps. Steel under intense heat expands.

When jets crashed and took out several floors of the structure, there was enough jet fuel remaining that was witnessed pouring down the elevator shafts and the center tube construction. Your pipe dream of non combustible furniture and carpeting is just that, a pipe dream . Flames were so intense that the survivors were driven to the gapping holes and the exit holes. Several people simply fell trying to escape the carnage and the fires .......If everything was fire proof ,,,why were there intense fires? Nothing you claim is making sense. Your claims fly in the face of Physics.

Prove by specifications the furniture and carpet that was used was fire retardant, then post the actual spec.

The Fir retardant on the steel was a sprayed on application. In other words paint. Numerous building inspector details noted that some columns and beams were simply missed in the process. The spray on protection was never manufactured or designed to withstand a plane impact. In fact studies detailed that most likely the coat simply sprawled off the beams. Noted in particular was the issue concerning the floor joists. Lab results and computer studies show that in the expansion of the frame .... the joists simply separated and crashed down on the floor below.

Do your own experiments.

And exactly what experiments have you conducted?

You are not an engineer. You have not studied physics ...

Those buildings are designed to sway. They will not topple one side or the other.

Build a popsicle stick house and support the top floor with unglued sticks that the floor rests on. Make it about 7 floors if you like. Then put a rock on the top floor, then remove one of the support saticks and see how far the rock falls before iit stops. See if it collapses straight down or doesn't lean one way! YOu will learn an importan truth about what the government hid about teh collapse of the three buildings at the WTC complex.

Laughable at best ...comparing wood to steel ...You have a lot of work to do. You are out of your league and refuse to admit it.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

No one has said that steel melted. If you would read before jumping to conclusions and distance the myths you've seen by the conspiracy nuts...Steel under intense heat warps. Steel under intense heat expands.

someone did say steel melted.

Steel under INTENSE heats softens, warps, and bends yes. the planes crashing in to the WSTC is not that however!

Jet fuel burns at approx 800F and steel begins to soften at at approx 800F But that requires a consistent temperature over time. When the planes crashed- 95% of the jet fuel exploded and burned off in under a minute ergo there was not enough fuel to create a consistent temperature over time to soften the structural steel to the point of softening! but to follow you thewory and assum eits correct (which it is not according to all the textbooks) it would have only softened to the point where the steel would warp and bend in only one quadrant (where the jet fuel exploded). And physics shows that if it softened enough to cause a collapse- the upper floors would have toppled over where the steel had been weakened, not coollapse into teh building.

When jets crashed and took out several floors of the structure, there was enough jet fuel remaining that was witnessed pouring down the elevator shafts and the center tube construction. Your pipe dream of non combustible furniture and carpeting is just that, a pipe dream . Flames were so intense that the survivors were driven to the gapping holes and the exit holes. Several people simply fell trying to escape the carnage and the fires .......If everything was fire proof ,,,why were there intense fires? Nothing you claim is making sense. Your claims fly in the face of Physics.

Maybe in the first 30 seconds but not after that! And where did you get this info- I call BS.

As for all the furnishings- all you need do is read teh building codes for office furnishings for high rise buildings in NYC and you won't sound like you are pulling things out of thin air! And I did not say fire proof- I said fire retardant. Do you need for me to explain the difference?

there was intense fires for only a short period. You can go on you tube and search for videos of the plane strikes! After the initial explosions the smoke of the fires went from whitish to grey to near black. that is what is known as a fire becoming fuel starved! That is also available on any fire prevention website thatr deals wit it.

Prove by specifications the furniture and carpet that was used was fire retardant, then post the actual spec.

Why don't you? You reject the building codes so do y0ur own work. I will not spend a month finding all teh manufacturers of trhe room dividers, cabinets desks, chairs etc. and then search out all their specs for fire retardant approval by the varied regulatory agencies.

Do your own experiments.

And exactly what experiments have you conducted?

You are not an engineer. You have not studied physics ...

Can Ross no longer type that you have to answer posts addressed to Him?

I have done no experiments. but I have watched many experiments done by phd engineers, physicists, chemists, fire prevention experts, pilots in trainers etc. to know.
They are all on videos if you wish to watch them.

No I have not studied engineering, I di dhave one year advanced physics in high school way back in the 70's. Have you studied either ? are you certified in either? what field in physics and what field in engineering? Do they have anything to do with the engineering of high rises or physics involved in forensic analysis of high rise disasters?

Build a popsicle stick house and support the top floor with unglued sticks that the floor rests on. Make it about 7 floors if you like. Then put a rock on the top floor, then remove one of the support saticks and see how far the rock falls before iit stops. See if it collapses straight down or doesn't lean one way! YOu will learn an importan truth about what the government hid about teh collapse of the three buildings at the WTC complex.

Laughable at best ...comparing wood to steel ...You have a lot of work to do. You are out of your league and refuse to admit it.

Well it does prove the point of the physics invovled in collapsiong buildings!

1. building that have 90 floors of structural steel columns in tact do not fall at free fall speed as did all three WTC buildings did.

2. Sections above a crash that only damaged a quadrant or even half of support columns do not fall in on themselves! The up[per floors above teh damaged floors will topple over where the resistance has been removed. that also is a law of physics- falling objects will always find th epath of least resistance and air has a lot less resistance than anywehere form 70-90 floors of support columsn, external steel, thousands of trons of concrete and rebar!

If you have training in engineering or physics you should know that!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

No one has said that steel melted. If you would read before jumping to conclusions and distance the myths you've seen by the conspiracy nuts...Steel under intense heat warps. Steel under intense heat expands.

When jets crashed and took out several floors of the structure, there was enough jet fuel remaining that was witnessed pouring down the elevator shafts and the center tube construction. Your pipe dream of non combustible furniture and carpeting is just that, a pipe dream . Flames were so intense that the survivors were driven to the gapping holes and the exit holes. Several people simply fell trying to escape the carnage and the fires .......If everything was fire proof ,,,why were there intense fires? Nothing you claim is making sense. Your claims fly in the face of Physics.

Prove by specifications the furniture and carpet that was used was fire retardant, then post the actual spec.

The Fir retardant on the steel was a sprayed on application. In other words paint. Numerous building inspector details noted that some columns and beams were simply missed in the process. The spray on protection was never manufactured or designed to withstand a plane impact. In fact studies detailed that most likely the coat simply sprawled off the beams. Noted in particular was the issue concerning the floor joists. Lab results and computer studies show that in the expansion of the frame .... the joists simply separated and crashed down on the floor below.

Do your own experiments.

And exactly what experiments have you conducted?

You are not an engineer. You have not studied physics ...

Those buildings are designed to sway. They will not topple one side or the other.

Build a popsicle stick house and support the top floor with unglued sticks that the floor rests on. Make it about 7 floors if you like. Then put a rock on the top floor, then remove one of the support saticks and see how far the rock falls before iit stops. See if it collapses straight down or doesn't lean one way! YOu will learn an importan truth about what the government hid about teh collapse of the three buildings at the WTC complex.

Laughable at best ...comparing wood to steel ...You have a lot of work to do. You are out of your league and refuse to admit it.

but to give you an answer to another thing you considered hogwash:

FAQ #2: Were the Twin Towers designed to withstand the impact of the airplanes?
AE911Truth

Early design tests confirmed that the Twin Towers could survive the impact of a Boeing 707, which is similar in size to the Boeing 767s (or reinforced military jets painted to look like commercial airplanes) that crashed into them on 9/11.Both technical calculations and testimony from World Trade Center structural engineers confirm that the Twin Towers were built to withstand the impact from the passenger jets that hit them on 9/11.

Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.

FAQ #2: Were the Twin Towers designed to withstand the impact of the airplanes? (ae911truth.org)

Maybe you should look first before opening your mouth!

 

[bluedragon]

No where near the fuel capacity ....

There is not a military cargo plane designed around the 707.

Collapse is no where near the same for penetration and destructive capability. You seem to think the jet would simply "bounce" off.

Give it up ....you are fighting a losing battle.

 

[Jay Ross]

Well that is all well and good in a lab, but there was no zinc at the WTC. also aluminum melts at 1200F And no steel will not dissolve in zinc at 420C, the zinc melts but not the steel, especially structural steel.

And while the liquid may have been an aluminum iron mixture (though that is not liekly) it takes a furnace at 1200F to melt the aluminum and a furnace at 2500F to melt structural steel. As there was no furnace, no fuel to combine with the winds to create heats that hoit for the length of time needed- all you say is true, but not relavent to the WTC.

Well, you can continue to show your ignorance, but if a Galvanising pot's interface temperature between the steel pot and the liquid goes above 420 °C then the ferrite in the steel plate will dissolve into the liquid zinc. I have seen that occur. the phase diagram for Al-Fe and Zn-Fe both show the same pattern with respect to their respective ability to dissolve Fe.

You sir only know what you believe, you know without the understanding of the limitation of your knowledge base.

Well you can argue with the fire prevention experts and aviation experts and fuel experts who all went on public record stating that in a crash like occurred at the WTC 95% or more of the fuel is combusted within the first 30 seconds. If you choose to not believe them, then look at an archived video of the planes crashing in to teh building and then notice the massive fireball happen and how quickly that fireball dies! Then keep looking and see how quickly the fires die to just small flame fires and become more and more fuel starved.

Yes, I would tend to agree with their conclusions, but my experience is that a liquid needs to be atomised or gamified for the combustion to be very rapid.

Now if you have a 44-gal drum with the top removed full of fuel, and you ignite the top surface of the fuel in that drum, it will burn for much longer than 35 seconds as you suggest. The question that no one can answer is just how much fuel was released from the plane's fuel tanks when it crashed into the respective towers. Now heat is required to vapourised the jet fuel and the building structure around the crashed plane would have absorbed much of the heat from the fuel burning thereby slowing down the rate at which the fuel was consumed. Yes, we can say that the fuel if spilt on the ground in a thin layer will all be gone rapidly but in the 9/11 event the fuel would have spill into the structure and the combustion process as the videos show occurred over a much longer time period.

Those factors are taken in to consideration when these special high rises are built! You should know that. The desings are done to take into account th ewinds and built to allow the building to sway with minimal to no wind fatigue. IOW they are designed to bend and not cause structural fatigue! You can look that up for any of the super high rises.

Again, I agree with you, but the design codes at that time did not necessarily take into account the change in temperature as a result of a fire from a plane crashing into the building. The rise in temperature was mitigated by the insulation of the steel structure. How effective that was in the case of a plane crashing into the building can be seen in that the building after 45 minutes or so began to collapse. In a fire internally of the towers without an outside fuel source, the insulation would have been effective, but in this case it was not.

Now you have admitted that you are not an expert and that you are relying on the supposed expertise of all those who have given their opinions as to why the building collapsed. We will not know all of the contributing factors that cause the building to collapse, but the theory that the building was wired with explosions is not a plausible explanation to hat you hat on.

I am finished with your ignorance.

Have a good day then.

 

[ScottA]

Anyone wanting to watch a great church service dedicated to remembering 9-11, this is a great one (1-of-3 parts), on YouTube:

What God Must Do - Part 1​

 

[bluedragon]

Well, you can continue to show your ignorance, but if a Galvanising pot's interface temperature between the steel pot and the liquid goes above 420 °C then the ferrite in the steel plate will dissolve into the liquid zinc. I have seen that occur. the phase diagram for Al-Fe and Zn-Fe both show the same pattern with respect to their respective ability to dissolve Fe.

You sir only know what you believe, you know without the understanding of the limitation of your knowledge base.



Yes, I would tend to agree with their conclusions, but my experience is that a liquid needs to be atomised or gamified for the combustion to be very rapid.

Now if you have a 44-gal drum with the top removed full of fuel, and you ignite the top surface of the fuel in that drum, it will burn for much longer than 35 seconds as you suggest. The question that no one can answer is just how much fuel was released from the plane's fuel tanks when it crashed into the respective towers. Now heat is required to vapourised the jet fuel and the building structure around the crashed plane would have absorbed much of the heat from the fuel burning thereby slowing down the rate at which the fuel was consumed. Yes, we can say that the fuel if spilt on the ground in a thin layer will all be gone rapidly but in the 9/11 event the fuel would have spill into the structure and the combustion process as the videos show occurred over a much longer time period.



Again, I agree with you, but the design codes at that time did not necessarily take into account the change in temperature as a result of a fire from a plane crashing into the building. The rise in temperature was mitigated by the insulation of the steel structure. How effective that was in the case of a plane crashing into the building can be seen in that the building after 45 minutes or so began to collapse. In a fire internally of the towers without an outside fuel source, the insulation would have been effective, but in this case it was not.

Now you have admitted that you are not an expert and that you are relying on the supposed expertise of all those who have given their opinions as to why the building collapsed. We will not know all of the contributing factors that cause the building to collapse, but the theory that the building was wired with explosions is not a plausible explanation to hat you hat on.

I am finished with your ignorance.

Have a good day then.

But, but, but popsicle stick buildings built in the backyard ....

 

[bluedragon]

World Trade Center - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

This was the study that included past fires inside the World Trade Center. It details the fire by the jet fuel, the stress on the structure and the fact that carpet, soft furniture, files, office chemicals all contributed to a fire that smoldered for days after the collapse. No, the building codes did not require everything to be fire retardant...Possible office desks ....but how would you police that given the fact that each floor had a different resident? Give me a copy of your manufacturer's label?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Well, you can continue to show your ignorance, but if a Galvanising pot's interface temperature between the steel pot and the liquid goes above 420 °C then the ferrite in the steel plate will dissolve into the liquid zinc. I have seen that occur. the phase diagram for Al-Fe and Zn-Fe both show the same pattern with respect to their respective ability to dissolve Fe.

You sir only know what you believe, you know without the understanding of the limitation of your knowledge base.

Well according to texts a-ferrite (which is not steel but a part of iron to be made in to steel and the most ductile of ferrites) melts at 712C and becomes d-ferrite at temps above 900C.

So unless there is some acid involved in teh molten zinc the ferrite in a steel plate will simply stay put. You are being disingenuous. For ferrite is not structural steel but a component found in raw iron which becomes steel. But when it is treated and mixed to become structural steel- it stays put until temps abopve 2500F.

Now if you have a 44-gal drum with the top removed full of fuel, and you ignite the top surface of the fuel in that drum, it will burn for much longer than 35 seconds as you suggest. The question that no one can answer is just how much fuel was released from the plane's fuel tanks when it crashed into the respective towers. Now heat is required to vapourised the jet fuel and the building structure around the crashed plane would have absorbed much of the heat from the fuel burning thereby slowing down the rate at which the fuel was consumed. Yes, we can say that the fuel if spilt on the ground in a thin layer will all be gone rapidly but in the 9/11 event the fuel would have spill into the structure and the combustion process as the videos show occurred over a much longer time period.

Well how much was released has been documented. all you need is the distance travelled, the reported fuel weight at start and you gedt remaining fuell at the crash.

Now you are uysing false comparisons. Why don't you try an experiment for yourself with a 44 gal drum of liquid fuels with open top and time how it takes to burn

But in a catastrophic crash all fuel is massively pushed in to the fireball and consumed. But don't take my word, just watchtt hbew videos of the crash and see hbow quickly the fireball dies down!

Again, I agree with you, but the design codes at that time did not necessarily take into account the change in temperature as a result of a fire from a plane crashing into the building. The rise in temperature was mitigated by the insulation of the steel structure. How effective that was in the case of a plane crashing into the building can be seen in that the building after 45 minutes or so began to collapse. In a fire internally of the towers without an outside fuel source, the insulation would have been effective, but in this case it was not.

And once again jet fuel does not burn hot enough or long enough to do azny consequential softening of steel supports! But they did simulations showing a 707 crashing at 600MPH and the towers survive.

Again, I agree with you, but the design codes at that time did not necessarily take into account the change in temperature as a result of a fire from a plane crashing into the building. The rise in temperature was mitigated by the insulation of the steel structure. How effective that was in the case of a plane crashing into the building can be seen in that the building after 45 minutes or so began to collapse. In a fire internally of the towers without an outside fuel source, the insulation would have been effective, but in this case it was not.

REally?? You think them that dumb? So you post postulations you have no idea of. It doesn't matter how long teh fires burned. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough or long enough for steel to soften to as point of collapse. There are enormous amoun of videos out there of high rise strucutres of steel and concrete heavily invovled in fires and not one has collapsed. One was I believe a 37 story hotel with all sorts of nioce fule in wooden furnishings. Teh whole building was invovled for over 20 hours! The steel did not warp, bend or collapse.

High rise strucutres do not collapse from "normal" fires. Specially designed plasma burns or long lasting incendiaries with plasma like flames- yes!

Now you have admitted that you are not an expert and that you are relying on the supposed expertise of all those who have given their opinions as to why the building collapsed. We will not know all of the contributing factors that cause the building to collapse, but the theory that the building was wired with explosions is not a plausible explanation to hat you hat on.

Well their expertise far surpasses yours. Some of them are professors at such low life universities MIT, WPI, Rensellar, Stanford et. al. Fire prevention experts specializing on high rise construction, metallurgists, architects, constructions engineers, chemists, physicists and on and on.

What degree do you hold? What is your pracxtical experience.

You already lied to all here once through coy deception. No I am no expert but I consult real experts with real-bona-fides. as opposed to you.

Once again buildings at rest and collpase from catastrophic damage to a quadrant or half ofd the building WILL NEVER fall assymetrically at free fall speeds as teh WTC's did. It is physically impossible.

 

[Jay Ross]

Well according to texts a-ferrite (which is not steel but a part of iron to be made in to steel and the most ductile of ferrites) melts at 712C and becomes d-ferrite at temps above 900C.

So unless there is some acid involved in teh molten zinc the ferrite in a steel plate will simply stay put. You are being disingenuous. For ferrite is not structural steel but a component found in raw iron which becomes steel. But when it is treated and mixed to become structural steel- it stays put until temps abopve 2500F.




Well how much was released has been documented. all you need is the distance travelled, the reported fuel weight at start and you gedt remaining fuell at the crash.

Now you are uysing false comparisons. Why don't you try an experiment for yourself with a 44 gal drum of liquid fuels with open top and time how it takes to burn

But in a catastrophic crash all fuel is massively pushed in to the fireball and consumed. But don't take my word, just watchtt hbew videos of the crash and see hbow quickly the fireball dies down!



And once again jet fuel does not burn hot enough or long enough to do azny consequential softening of steel supports! But they did simulations showing a 707 crashing at 600MPH and the towers survive.



REally?? You think them that dumb? So you post postulations you have no idea of. It doesn't matter how long teh fires burned. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough or long enough for steel to soften to as point of collapse. There are enormous amoun of videos out there of high rise strucutres of steel and concrete heavily invovled in fires and not one has collapsed. One was I believe a 37 story hotel with all sorts of nioce fule in wooden furnishings. Teh whole building was invovled for over 20 hours! The steel did not warp, bend or collapse.

High rise strucutres do not collapse from "normal" fires. Specially designed plasma burns or long lasting incendiaries with plasma like flames- yes!




Well their expertise far surpasses yours. Some of them are professors at such low life universities MIT, WPI, Rensellar, Stanford et. al. Fire prevention experts specializing on high rise construction, metallurgists, architects, constructions engineers, chemists, physicists and on and on.

What degree do you hold? What is your pracxtical experience.

You already lied to all here once through coy deception. No I am no expert but I consult real experts with real-bona-fides. as opposed to you.

Once again buildings at rest and collpase from catastrophic damage to a quadrant or half ofd the building WILL NEVER fall assymetrically at free fall speeds as teh WTC's did. It is physically impossible.

Have it your way. You are a tranducer and a good and faithful servant of Satan. You will never realise His promised reward for your services to him.

Shalom

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Have it your way. You are a tranducer and a good and faithful servant of Satan. You will never realise His promised reward for your services to him.

Shalom

WOW ! Because I disagree with the holy Jay Ross, I am now a servant of the devil! Welcome to my ignore list. I didn't know agreeing with you on 9/11 is pat of the requirement cfor salvation. I will ask Jesus to keep me from you r view in His kingdom. Cuz you will have such a sadz when you find out yuou aint;' god and have no place to judge a person 's salvation witrh your overinflated ego. This is my last post to you- welcome to my ignore world!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

WOW ! Because I disagree with the holy Jay Ross, I am now a servant of the devil! Welcome to my ignore list. I didn't know agreeing with you on 9/11 is pat of the requirement cfor salvation. I will ask Jesus to keep me from you r view in His kingdom. Cuz you will have such a sadz when you find out yuou aint;' god and have no place to judge a person 's salvation witrh your overinflated ego. This is my last post to you- welcome to my ignore world!

Let us move to the pentagon now. Jay may have ulcers because he is on my ignore list- but that is why they invented TUMS.

Teh pentagon was not hit by a plane.

Over 500 pilots and aviation experts all have gone public (at risk to their careers) to denounce the NIST report as a fabrication. These are succinct reasons but the conclusions are these:

1. No 737 of any iteration can make the sharp turn they diagrammed showing the "commercial airliner" making a very very sharp turn to face the pentagon.

2. No commercial jetliner of anysize can fly that low at tehose speeds without creating a vortex that would force the plane to crash and cartwheel.

3. The base of the whole in teh pentagon is too low to have been made by any commercial jetliner of that day.

4. Where is the debris? There is a video of the pentagon , 30 minutes after the disaster happened. there are no wings, no tail, no jets, no luggage, no clothes, no body parts, no seats on teh gfround or in the building. EVERY, I repeat EVERY crash of an airplane with high speed impact leaves all that kind of debris without exception. Also why did not the rest of teh affectefd building not collpase? Teh fires burned longer, there was more fuel for the fires to continue, there was less structural streel left to support the roof and remaining of the upper flooes! If a plane could collapse a 110 stroy building by hitting it on the 90th floor and have it symmetrically collapse thorugh all the lower support columns, steel and concrete, why not the pentagon?

 

[Jay Ross]

So be it @Ronald Nolette, but if you are going to tell lies about the 9/11 event, then you are doing a disservice to God. That is a bigger sin than what you accuse me off. Oh, I placed no judgement on you, I only followed where your lies were taking you. It is time that you repented of your sins against God.

Have a good day now.

 

[JohnPaul]

Have it your way. You are a tranducer and a good and faithful servant of Satan. You will never realise His promised reward for your services to him.

Shalom

The guy is a conspiracist.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The guy is a conspiracist.

Well some call it conspiracy, others call it looking at the event in light of facts! The NIST fable (written by one who did no forensic analysis of teh event of materials he had illegally removed) is so easily debunked by basic fore experts, physicistsa, chemists, strucutral engineers, architects, pilots etc.etc.etc.

Maybe yu can expalin why the debris field at teh pentagon is missing the debris from a plane crashing?

 

[bluedragon]

Seems we've beaten this horse to death. You have nothing to go by other than the videos observed that fits your view that fit your conspiracy myths. Better that we part from this as brothers and focus on more important topics ....

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Seems we've beaten this horse to death. You have nothing to go by other than the videos observed that fits your view that fit your conspiracy myths. Better that we part from this as brothers and focus on more important topics ....

As you wish. It is just sad you did not investigate these 15,000 experts and what they had to say. and just accept the NIST report that was performed by those who did not even do forensic research.

But hey we move on.