Explosions on 9/11

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

 

 

like the fact that steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C), check out the following links: What will Grid Iron say?

 

Checked out the links and have already read them as most of the debunking stuff that gets thrown in my face. This is simply a straw man argument you are throwing out there, jets24. A straw man argument is an argument that you can easily knock down, and it's one that I never made. I agree that steel melts at 1525 C. I agree that jet fuel burns at a lower temperature. I agree it doesn't have to burn hot enough to to melt the steel in order for it to collapse. What I'm telling you, is that NIST has no samples of steel that show 648 ° C. Get it????? You have no evidence that the steel got to 648 ° C where steel loses half its strength. In fact I have the evidence that the steel never reached those temperatures. Try reading this ==>>> Cold steel temperatures

 

Get informed.

[pimptastic69 0]

Yes, agreed. Assymetrical fires means you'd have an assymetrical collapse. Of course 911 myths and others say that building 7 fell diagonally even though we saw it fall straight down. Yes, the simultaneous collapse of all columns doesn't work real well unless the fire was burning in the same spots the whole time. But scientific reasoning won't get in the way of some of these goofs.

 

You don't really believe this crap, do you?

 

Just think about this. Steel doesn't have to melt before it completley fails. It only needs to be weakened. The WTC was made of steel. It was weakened, and therefore it failed.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

You don't really believe this crap, do you?

 

Just think about this. Steel doesn't have to melt before it completley fails. It only needs to be weakened. The WTC was made of steel. It was weakened, and therefore it failed.

 

That just doesn't make sense. When you say steel weakens, therefore it fails, you don't put a number on the weakening. It needs to be weakened to the point of at least 50 percent strength. Nobody is going to believe that just because steel weakens less than 1 percent, it will completely fail. That's why evidence is needed to show that the steel actually achieved temperatures that would cause the steel to fail.

[lambert58 73]

A building never collapsed from fire...some of the firefighters said they heard sounds of bombs going off.

 

 

 

You ever have a 2 liter pop bottle explode? Sounds like a bomb.

 

How about a fire extinguisher? Sounds like a bomb.

 

Ever hear a propane tank explode? Sounds like a bomb.

 

Any type of gas line? Sounds like a bomb.

 

 

 

 

Do you mean to tell me that there were NO items inside the WTC that could explode if subjected to intense heat and fire? I have seen mobile homes and houses burn where explosions took place during the fire. No evidence of bombs.

[Cyber Gandalf 0]

You ever have a 2 liter pop bottle explode? Sounds like a bomb.

 

How about a fire extinguisher? Sounds like a bomb.

 

Ever hear a propane tank explode? Sounds like a bomb.

 

Any type of gas line? Sounds like a bomb.

 

 

Do you mean to tell me that there were NO items inside the WTC that could explode if subjected to intense heat and fire? I have seen mobile homes and houses burn where explosions took place during the fire. No evidence of bombs.

 

The glass of the lobby was blown out...that's like 1000 feet below impact.

[lambert58 73]

The glass of the lobby was blown out...that's like 1000 feet below impact.

 

 

Look at the video in the top post. The towers have already fell. There is no Lobby and nothing 1000 feet above where the lobby was. There was only a pile of rubble that was on fire. The fire burned for several days. Once the building collapsed the fire was now in the lower part of the WTC. The lower part probably had numerous storage areas full of cleaning chemicals, propane tanks, underground gas lines, etc....

 

Vehicles were under the rubble. Fire and heat could have caused gas tanks to explode in the vehicles. There are thousands of possible logical explanations for the explosions but conspiracy buffs won't listen to any of them. I wonder if any of them have seen video of a 55 gallon drum exploding? One drum exploding can shoot the drum over 400 feet into the air. The noise is incredible.

 

 

Here is a news story of a warehouse that caught fire.

 

 

http://www.kvue.com/news/state/stories/022...eh.5c62400.html

 

The story mentions that Hazmat was called when explosions were heard during the fire. I suppose the same people setting off bombs at the WTC had a similar mission at this warehouse? Fire and heat create explosions.

 

 

This story (in pictures for those who can't read) describes 55 gallon drums exploding. The noise echoed throughout the neighborhood.

 

http://www.cfdhistory.com/htmls/incident.p...20City%20Barrel

 

Waiting patiently for arguments against these "lies".

[OakHeadFootball 1]

A building never collapsed from fire...some of the firefighters said they heard sounds of bombs going off.

 

 

You're wrong as can possibly be. In the Madrid tower fire nearly every steel structural member that was not encased in concrete failed and collapsed.

 

There are several other situations where steel has failed due to fire.

 

But it is really as simple as this. If fire is no concern then why do they require every piece of structural steel to be fire proofed as part of the building codes? Because steel fails when exposed to heat. If there was no concern that the steel would weaken from a ordinary hydrocarbon fire (let alone a jet fuel induced inferno) then building codes would not require fireproofed steel.

 

As a result of the investigations NIST has been pushing for more concrete covered steel structural members. It has shown to hold up very well to heat.

 

An a side note. there are documented accounts of "explosions" going off in the lobby and lower floors.

Now considering that the towers both collapsed at the points of impact it goes against logic to assume that demolition charges in the lower floors were used. The fact is that several of the lower floors stayed somewhat intact because the rubble and debris covered them and absorbed energy, in essence forming a protective cocoon. Several people survived and were dug out of the lower floors.

 

It is neither unreasonable or illogical to assume that the "explosions" people heard were due to the catastrophic structural and mechanical damage due to the jet airliners impacting at near 500 MPH and the subsequent infernos they created.

 

Also worth a note is that fire fighters and others at the scene reported hearing"explosions" not bombs. You added that for drama I suppose. But it is typical quote manipulation by the conspiracy theorists.

 

How many FDNY endorse a "controlled demolition" scenario? <crickets>

[Sho Nuff 720]

Do you even understand the issue? The jet impact only served as a device to start the fire and according to NIST and to take off the insulation off the steel. The actual impact only severed 6 and 10 core columns according to NIST and a few perimeter columns. That means a 2nd event had to take down the rest of the building. Without a second event, the towers, according to NIST would still be standing. NIST claims fire did it , but there is no evidence that fire could reach the necessary temperatures to knock down the columns. Unless you see something that I am missing. You need to show that the temperatures got hot enough make the steel fail, or your story is false.

 

Try reading this==>>These are temperatures reported by NIST........

 

You can scroll down through all 15 pages of Gayle's work here and not find any evidence that the steel had high enought temperatures to make the steel fail.

 

Shonuff, Nist is saying it was 2 events that did it. Nist recognizes, that jet impact couldn't do it alone. The fires are the 2nd event they say made the steel fail. That's what is being questioned. The fires as far as I can see didn't reach temperatures that could do the damage.

Instead of figuring out Bush's role in this, why not try to defend your story on how fire makes steel fail. Show me some evidence that steel samples achieved necessary temperatures to make the steel fail. Unless you can prove that temperatures of the steel were hot enough to make those columns fail, you are the one with the tinfoil hat.

 

Please read ==>> NIST TESTS

 

Did you even read what I wrote? Where did I claim that it was only the impact. I said it was two events moron...the impact weakening the structure enough so that the temps did not have to be as hot as you claim.

 

Seems you just want to spin what I say...rather than actually read what I wrote in the first place.

 

You have been refuted on this crap time and time again, yet you keep bringing it up...predictably with a new link to video that shows absolutely nothing.

 

Checked out the links and have already read them as most of the debunking stuff that gets thrown in my face. This is simply a straw man argument you are throwing out there, jets24. A straw man argument is an argument that you can easily knock down, and it's one that I never made. I agree that steel melts at 1525 C. I agree that jet fuel burns at a lower temperature. I agree it doesn't have to burn hot enough to to melt the steel in order for it to collapse. What I'm telling you, is that NIST has no samples of steel that show 648 ° C. Get it????? You have no evidence that the steel got to 648 ° C where steel loses half its strength. In fact I have the evidence that the steel never reached those temperatures. Try reading this ==>>> Cold steel temperatures

 

Get informed.

 

You claiming someone else is throwing out a straw man argument is laughable...it is all you have thrown out.

 

You're wrong as can possibly be. In the Madrid tower fire nearly every steel structural member that was not encased in concrete failed and collapsed.

 

There are several other situations where steel has failed due to fire.

 

But it is really as simple as this. If fire is no concern then why do they require every piece of structural steel to be fire proofed as part of the building codes? Because steel fails when exposed to heat. If there was no concern that the steel would weaken from a ordinary hydrocarbon fire (let alone a jet fuel induced inferno) then building codes would not require fireproofed steel.

 

As a result of the investigations NIST has been pushing for more concrete covered steel structural members. It has shown to hold up very well to heat.

 

An a side note. there are documented accounts of "explosions" going off in the lobby and lower floors.

Now considering that the towers both collapsed at the points of impact it goes against logic to assume that demolition charges in the lower floors were used. The fact is that several of the lower floors stayed somewhat intact because the rubble and debris covered them and absorbed energy, in essence forming a protective cocoon. Several people survived and were dug out of the lower floors.

 

It is neither unreasonable or illogical to assume that the "explosions" people heard were due to the catastrophic structural and mechanical damage due to the jet airliners impacting at near 500 MPH and the subsequent infernos they created.

 

Also worth a note is that fire fighters and others at the scene reported hearing"explosions" not bombs. You added that for drama I suppose. But it is typical quote manipulation by the conspiracy theorists.

 

How many FDNY endorse a "controlled demolition" scenario? <crickets>

 

And again you say it much nicer, and more eloquently than I do...though, its all for nothing...Gridiron will never admit he is full of it...nor will he stop posting another link in a week or so...of something that shows absolutely nothing...and bring up the exact same points again.

[OakHeadFootball 1]

Here's some more food for thought:

 

In order for the towers to fall the way they fell, all supports would have had to collapse nearly simultaneously. Kind of hard to do as the fires will heat things unevenly...

 

Oh, the columns would have to break at opposite angles in multiple locations as well.

 

Otherwise, the building would collapse into it's weekest point and likely either fall over like a tree or remain partially standing with a ton of debris below.

 

This is all wrong also.

 

You have not read the any of the NIST report on what initiated the collapse and you have a poor understanding of physics and construction if you think the towers could have fallen like trees or remained partially standing once the hundreds of thousands of tons of collapsing floors became dynamic.

 

Gridiron also vastly underestimated the structural damage the airliners impact created.

 

 

Extra points for someone who can explain the actual physical "triggers" of the collapse.

[Sho Nuff 720]

This is all wrong also.

 

You have not read the any of the NIST report on what initiated the collapse and you have a poor understanding of physics and construction if you think the towers could have fallen like trees or remained partially standing once the hundreds of thousands of tons of collapsing floors became dynamic.

 

Gridiron also vastly underestimated the structural damage the airliners impact created.

Extra points for someone who can explain the actual physical "triggers" of the collapse.

 

Been a while since I read it...however, it was not with the steel support structure, as much as it was that which supported the floor system that failed.

[OakHeadFootball 1]

Been a while since I read it...however, it was not with the steel support structure, as much as it was that which supported the floor system that failed.

 

Correct. More specifically the floor trusses, which were connected to the perimeter columns, sagged and failed pulling the perimeter columns inward triggering global collapse.

 

 

Sho wins a banana dance

[Cyber Gandalf 0]

What about building 7...they had orders to "pull" it.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

Correct. More specifically the floor trusses, which were connected to the perimeter columns, sagged and failed pulling the perimeter columns inward triggering global collapse.

Sho wins a banana dance

 

1.Nice to see you back in the debate Oakhead Football. I thought maybe you gave up or else joined the 9/11 truth movement. I need to comment on a few of your posts. I want to see how you think the failure mechanism worked. If you could so kindly oblige me with the details. "the floor trusses, which were connected to the perimeter columns, sagged and failed pulling the perimeter columns inward triggering global collapse." When you say fail, I assume you mean the truss connector to column failed, thus no longer being connected. Are you saying the floor trusses heated up, sagged, pulled the exterior columns inward , then failed(disconnect from the column)? The reason I ask is because that sounds alot like the way FEMA described it. Typical language for failure by FEMA is associated with truss failure, whereas NIST it's column failure. The difference being truss failure supports the pancake theory (floor to floor collapse), the column failure supports the pile driver theory (top part crushes remainder). So, specifically the truss to column connector fails in the Fema report, where as the truss to column connector is very persistent in the NIST report.

 

It's no big deal, I was just curious. As of now, the way you described it, I'd put you in the book of truss failure proponent (FEMA).

 

 

2. Ok, that explosion could be almost anything. Agreed. I thought it was a good attention getter.

 

3. I give you kudos for pointing out the Madrid fire destroying all the steel members. This is an example that truthers try to use to show that steel high rise buildings don't completely collapse. I have not used this example however. I think I saw that Roberts brought this up on 911myths. But nonetheless it's a good point for official theorists.

 

4. "But it is really as simple as this. If fire is no concern then why do they require every piece of structural steel to be fire proofed as part of the building codes? Because steel fails when exposed to heat. If there was no concern that the steel would weaken from a ordinary hydrocarbon fire (let alone a jet fuel induced inferno) then building codes would not require fireproofed steel." You are right, fire insulation must help protect steel from hydrocarbon fires. However, your statement "that steel fails when exposed to heat", doesn't sound right. Think about it. Your cooking grill is made out of steel. When you expose that steel to heat, does it fail? NO. So steel just doesn't automatically fail when it is exposed to heat. There has to be a certain amount of heat to make that steel fail. We know that steel melts at 2500 degrees and we know the steel does not have to achieve this temperature to fail. However, we know that half strenth is steel around 1150 degrees. I think we'd need to see temperatures this high or higher for the steel to fail. NIST tests were done to see whether or not the temperatures reached a level that would compromise the strength of the steel. These tests done on actual steel samples from the world trade center do not reveal high enough temperatures for the steel to fail. If the the steel failed by fire, you'd see mud cracking and speroidization in the tests. The tests did not show that on the WTC steel samples. So, my question is, if fire made the core columns soften to the point of buckling and creeping, where is the evidence? There should be some samples that would indicate this could've happened. This is the crux of the problem that NIST has to deal with. It's one thing to say that the air temperatures reached a certain temperature and quite another to say the steel reached those temperatures or temperatures that would cause the steel to fail.

 

Actual evidence of steel temperatures.

[lambert58 73]

 

2. Ok, that explosion could be almost anything. Agreed. I thought it was a good attention getter.

 

 

 

 

 

I WIN, I WIN!!

[gocolts 300]

Seems you just want to spin what I say...rather than actually read what I wrote in the first place.

 

Sounds Just like every liberal on this forearm.

[OakHeadFootball 1]

1.Nice to see you back in the debate Oakhead Football. I thought maybe you gave up or else joined the 9/11 truth movement. I need to comment on a few of your posts. I want to see how you think the failure mechanism worked. If you could so kindly oblige me with the details. "the floor trusses, which were connected to the perimeter columns, sagged and failed pulling the perimeter columns inward triggering global collapse." When you say fail, I assume you mean the truss connector to column failed, thus no longer being connected. Are you saying the floor trusses heated up, sagged, pulled the exterior columns inward , then failed(disconnect from the column)? The reason I ask is because that sounds alot like the way FEMA described it. Typical language for failure by FEMA is associated with truss failure, whereas NIST it's column failure. The difference being truss failure supports the pancake theory (floor to floor collapse), the column failure supports the pile driver theory (top part crushes remainder). So, specifically the truss to column connector fails in the Fema report, where as the truss to column connector is very persistent in the NIST report.

 

It's no big deal, I was just curious. As of now, the way you described it, I'd put you in the book of truss failure proponent (FEMA).

2. Ok, that explosion could be almost anything. Agreed. I thought it was a good attention getter.

 

3. I give you kudos for pointing out the Madrid fire destroying all the steel members. This is an example that truthers try to use to show that steel high rise buildings don't completely collapse. I have not used this example however. I think I saw that Roberts brought this up on 911myths. But nonetheless it's a good point for official theorists.

 

4. "But it is really as simple as this. If fire is no concern then why do they require every piece of structural steel to be fire proofed as part of the building codes? Because steel fails when exposed to heat. If there was no concern that the steel would weaken from a ordinary hydrocarbon fire (let alone a jet fuel induced inferno) then building codes would not require fireproofed steel." You are right, fire insulation must help protect steel from hydrocarbon fires. However, your statement "that steel fails when exposed to heat", doesn't sound right. Think about it. Your cooking grill is made out of steel. When you expose that steel to heat, does it fail? NO. So steel just doesn't automatically fail when it is exposed to heat. There has to be a certain amount of heat to make that steel fail. We know that steel melts at 2500 degrees and we know the steel does not have to achieve this temperature to fail. However, we know that half strenth is steel around 1150 degrees. I think we'd need to see temperatures this high or higher for the steel to fail. NIST tests were done to see whether or not the temperatures reached a level that would compromise the strength of the steel. These tests done on actual steel samples from the world trade center do not reveal high enough temperatures for the steel to fail. If the the steel failed by fire, you'd see mud cracking and speroidization in the tests. The tests did not show that on the WTC steel samples. So, my question is, if fire made the core columns soften to the point of buckling and creeping, where is the evidence? There should be some samples that would indicate this could've happened. This is the crux of the problem that NIST has to deal with. It's one thing to say that the air temperatures reached a certain temperature and quite another to say the steel reached those temperatures or temperatures that would cause the steel to fail.

 

Actual evidence of steel temperatures.

 

 

 

"When you say fail, I assume you mean the truss connector to column failed, thus no longer being connected. Are you saying the floor trusses heated up, sagged, pulled the exterior columns inward , then failed(disconnect from the column)?"

 

The trusses remained attached to the perimeter columns long enough to pull them inward. By the trusses failing, I mean that they got hot enough so they could not carry the weight bearing load that was put on them and the centers started sagging. As they failed, or sagged, they pulled the bottoms of the perimeter columns inward, subsequently causing the perimeter (exterior) columns to also fail due to them being out of plumb and succumbing to the massive weight that was already redistributed through the damaged structural members. They could not pull the perimeter columns inward if they became detached at the truss to column connections. The perimeter columns connection (to each other, not to the truss) had already been damaged when the aircraft impacted and had good reason to fail. So in essence they both failed. There is video and photographic evidence of both events visible in NYPD aviation unit photographs and other videos.

 

 

"Your cooking grill is made out of steel. When you expose that steel to heat, does it fail? NO. So steel just doesn't automatically fail when it is exposed to heat."

 

Not a good analogy. Your grill is not supporting hundreds of thousands of tons.

 

Your grill is engineered to support hot dogs and hamburgers. Structural steel is engineered to support weight bearing loads, sometimes massive loads, sometimes even more massive when the structure gets damaged and weight is redistributed to the non damaged parts of the structure.

 

A closer analogy would be to put enough hamburgers on your grill so if you added several more the grill would collapse. Then get it hot and watch as the same grill that was just holding your hamburger skyscraper starts to sag and fail.

 

It is has more to due with the sheer weight loads than the specific temperature IMHO.

[jets24 6]

"When you say fail, I assume you mean the truss connector to column failed, thus no longer being connected. Are you saying the floor trusses heated up, sagged, pulled the exterior columns inward , then failed(disconnect from the column)?"

 

The trusses remained attached to the perimeter columns long enough to pull them inward. By the trusses failing, I mean that they got hot enough so they could not carry the weight bearing load that was put on them and the centers started sagging. As they failed, or sagged, they pulled the bottoms of the perimeter columns inward, subsequently causing the perimeter (exterior) columns to also fail due to them being out of plumb and succumbing to the massive weight that was already redistributed through the damaged structural members. They could not pull the perimeter columns inward if they became detached at the truss to column connections. The perimeter columns connection (to each other, not to the truss) had already been damaged when the aircraft impacted and had good reason to fail. So in essence they both failed. There is video and photographic evidence of both events visible in NYPD aviation unit photographs and other videos.

"Your cooking grill is made out of steel. When you expose that steel to heat, does it fail? NO. So steel just doesn't automatically fail when it is exposed to heat."

 

Not a good analogy. Your grill is not supporting hundreds of thousands of tons.

 

Your grill is engineered to support hot dogs and hamburgers. Structural steel is engineered to support weight bearing loads, sometimes massive loads, sometimes even more massive when the structure gets damaged and weight is redistributed to the non damaged parts of the structure.

 

A closer analogy would be to put enough hamburgers on your grill so if you added several more the grill would collapse. Then get it hot and watch as the same grill that was just holding your hamburger skyscraper starts to sag and fail.

 

It is has more to due with the sheer weight loads than the specific temperature IMHO.

 

Wow! Well explained. Plus, now I'm going out for hamburgers! Thanks!

[brinett9 0]

you guys ever see an old fireplace grate, the thing that holds the burning logs?

 

they bow very slowly over time from the heat and weight, even though the weight is only a few pounds.

 

you look at them after a few years of use and they are nothing like their original shape.

 

most of them are cast iron, not steel, but the principle is the same with regard to metal softening in temperatures which are well below the metal's melting point.

[Sho Nuff 720]

1.Nice to see you back in the debate Oakhead Football. I thought maybe you gave up or else joined the 9/11 truth movement. I need to comment on a few of your posts. I want to see how you think the failure mechanism worked. If you could so kindly oblige me with the details. "the floor trusses, which were connected to the perimeter columns, sagged and failed pulling the perimeter columns inward triggering global collapse." When you say fail, I assume you mean the truss connector to column failed, thus no longer being connected. Are you saying the floor trusses heated up, sagged, pulled the exterior columns inward , then failed(disconnect from the column)? The reason I ask is because that sounds alot like the way FEMA described it. Typical language for failure by FEMA is associated with truss failure, whereas NIST it's column failure. The difference being truss failure supports the pancake theory (floor to floor collapse), the column failure supports the pile driver theory (top part crushes remainder). So, specifically the truss to column connector fails in the Fema report, where as the truss to column connector is very persistent in the NIST report.

 

It's no big deal, I was just curious. As of now, the way you described it, I'd put you in the book of truss failure proponent (FEMA).

2. Ok, that explosion could be almost anything. Agreed. I thought it was a good attention getter.

 

3. I give you kudos for pointing out the Madrid fire destroying all the steel members. This is an example that truthers try to use to show that steel high rise buildings don't completely collapse. I have not used this example however. I think I saw that Roberts brought this up on 911myths. But nonetheless it's a good point for official theorists.

 

4. "But it is really as simple as this. If fire is no concern then why do they require every piece of structural steel to be fire proofed as part of the building codes? Because steel fails when exposed to heat. If there was no concern that the steel would weaken from a ordinary hydrocarbon fire (let alone a jet fuel induced inferno) then building codes would not require fireproofed steel." You are right, fire insulation must help protect steel from hydrocarbon fires. However, your statement "that steel fails when exposed to heat", doesn't sound right. Think about it. Your cooking grill is made out of steel. When you expose that steel to heat, does it fail? NO. So steel just doesn't automatically fail when it is exposed to heat. There has to be a certain amount of heat to make that steel fail. We know that steel melts at 2500 degrees and we know the steel does not have to achieve this temperature to fail. However, we know that half strenth is steel around 1150 degrees. I think we'd need to see temperatures this high or higher for the steel to fail. NIST tests were done to see whether or not the temperatures reached a level that would compromise the strength of the steel. These tests done on actual steel samples from the world trade center do not reveal high enough temperatures for the steel to fail. If the the steel failed by fire, you'd see mud cracking and speroidization in the tests. The tests did not show that on the WTC steel samples. So, my question is, if fire made the core columns soften to the point of buckling and creeping, where is the evidence? There should be some samples that would indicate this could've happened. This is the crux of the problem that NIST has to deal with. It's one thing to say that the air temperatures reached a certain temperature and quite another to say the steel reached those temperatures or temperatures that would cause the steel to fail.

 

Actual evidence of steel temperatures.

 

 

Truth? Nothing in your posts indicates you seek anything resembling the truth...you simply question...and when the truth is shown to you, you run, hide, say nothing...then come back a week or two later with another link like this one.

[PackerAttacker 0]

Ive said this before but Ill say it again...

 

I find it funny some of you libs rip on Bush for being the dumbest President ever... yet suddenly believe he is capable of organizing the largest hoax in United States History. Oh by the way... doing it all in less than a year too. With no one coming forward.....

 

Sorry.... no.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

 

 

 

 

Not a good analogy. Your grill is not supporting hundreds of thousands of tons.

 

Your grill is engineered to support hot dogs and hamburgers. Structural steel is engineered to support weight bearing loads, sometimes massive loads, sometimes even more massive when the structure gets damaged and weight is redistributed to the non damaged parts of the structure.

 

A closer analogy would be to put enough hamburgers on your grill so if you added several more the grill would collapse. Then get it hot and watch as the same grill that was just holding your hamburger skyscraper starts to sag and fail.

 

It is has more to due with the sheer weight loads than the specific temperature IMHO.

 

The grill is not supporting hundreds of thousands of tons, that is true. But then, the grill doesn't have the high strength steel, density, and mass, that the WTC tower columns had. The grill will support the hot dogs and hamburgers up to what it was designed for unless you weaken the steel with high enough temperatures.

 

 

"A closer analogy would be to put enough hamburgers on your grill so if you added several more the grill would collapse. Then get it hot and watch as the same grill that was just holding your hamburger skyscraper starts to sag and fail. "

 

Are you attempting to rewrite the physics of strength of materials? Go ahead and try your experiment, because I don't think your grill will fail. Unless you are planning on using something that will give higher temperatures, like blowtorching the steel. The weight bearing load is no where near the importance of temperatures that the steel had to face because engineers always over design. Without the steel having high temperatures , the weight will be supported for decades.

[Cyber Gandalf 0]

Ive said this before but Ill say it again...

 

I find it funny some of you libs rip on Bush for being the dumbest President ever... yet suddenly believe he is capable of organizing the largest hoax in United States History. Oh by the way... doing it all in less than a year too. With no one coming forward.....

 

Sorry.... no.

 

Bush acts dumb as a front...to fool you common people.

 

There's this movie you should see...it's called "Loose Change"...it will change the way you live your life.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Bush acts dumb as a front...to fool you common people.

 

There's this movie you should see...it's called "Loose Change"...it will change the way you live your life.

 

I don't support responding to trolls like you...but anytime that excuse for a movie is brought up, I just have to laugh. If that is where you get your "truth" from...you need more help than I think.

[Cyber Gandalf 0]

I don't support responding to trolls like you...but anytime that excuse for a movie is brought up, I just have to laugh. If that is where you get your "truth" from...you need more help than I think.

 

Can you tell me specific examples...don't just parrot the talking points.

[BMoney 0]

I don't support responding to trolls like you...but anytime that excuse for a movie is brought up, I just have to laugh. If that is where you get your "truth" from...you need more help than I think.

 

 

i was thinking the same thing...

 

buildings NEVER explode from a fire? are you kidding? forget that movie, he should go rent backdraft

 

it wasnt as if the WTCs fell straight down..there was a bit of an angle to it..but there was SO much weight to it..it wasnt going to tip over like a tree in the woods...

 

it does burn unevenly..but once 1 side goes..the other isnt going to be able to hold either..it succumbs to the pressure..and at a slight angle..away it goes its still amazing that it has been 5.5 years ago...

 

gravity doesnt take a day off...

[Sho Nuff 720]

Can you tell me specific examples...don't just parrot the talking points.

 

No...because you will not accept anything I say anyway....will just live in your usual alias denial...then run away.

There is no sense in trying to be logical with a twit like you.

Have a nice day.

[Cyber Gandalf 0]

i was thinking the same thing...

 

buildings NEVER explode from a fire? are you kidding? forget that movie, he should go rent backdraft

 

The WTC had fires before...why didn't it collapse then?

[Yer mom 2]

I havent read many of your opinions on the subject, nor have ever thrown in my .02 (which could be possibly all its worth) about 9/11 on a website but here goes...

 

Everything about the events that occured on 9/11 open my mind in a way that I wish it never would have. I enjoy living the way I do, I got no complaints. I dont know about specific facts as to why the Trade center collapsed as quick as it did, or what exactly hit the pentagon (sure as hell seems it wasnt a plane) or why/how everything transpired as it did. I really appreciate the fact that alot of you guys dont buy the fix was in shiit, showing that your faith runs deep in our leaders having us as their best interest, or it just didnt go down that way. My intuition wont allow me to ignore that society has us programmed in a way to act and live a certain way and to ignore, or just not believe whats happening behind the curtain. The whole thing to me sticks out like a broken toe, and everything in me tells me that the fix was in, and instincts are pretty hard to ignore or argue with so I cant really convince myself otherwise, and it fockin kills me. I feel like that little shiit from The Shining.

 

I love my country and the people in it, and hold the highest respect for our troops carrying out tasks that their being told to do, but our leaders our just completely out of control (obviously) Sure seems like it was the perfect plan to eventually invade Iraq, and runs way deeper than just a terrorist attack. The masters of the universe planned this and puppets like our president and administration are well aware and cant do a damn thing about it or are just completely in on it. I might even say that Bin Laden was like "Fock it, we'll be the scapegoat, whatever it takes to accomplish this task" (which obviously I would have no proof of what the big picture plan is) and whaddya know we havent gotten anywhere near the fockin guy. They count on us to not think this way, and for the most part it works, because we (majority of the common folk) dont want to believe it.

 

I dunno, my daily life is sweet. Im in good shape, got plenty of tang at my disposal, own a house, sick car and do pretty well financially. If I were to talk crazy like this to my family or friends they'd look at me like "What the fock does this have to do with how the Angels or Niners are gonna do this season?" I myself try not to think about or pay close attention to this shiit, cause what the hell difference would it make. This is just my food for thought. So if theres something i've completely missed, or you just wanna bash the shiit outta me, feel free, I could use the faith reaffirmation!

 

I've also been drinking

 

Carry on

[What is the deal? 1]

The grill is not supporting hundreds of thousands of tons, that is true. But then, the grill doesn't have the high strength steel, density, and mass, that the WTC tower columns had. The grill will support the hot dogs and hamburgers up to what it was designed for unless you weaken the steel with high enough temperatures.

"A closer analogy would be to put enough hamburgers on your grill so if you added several more the grill would collapse. Then get it hot and watch as the same grill that was just holding your hamburger skyscraper starts to sag and fail. "

 

Are you attempting to rewrite the physics of strength of materials? Go ahead and try your experiment, because I don't think your grill will fail. Unless you are planning on using something that will give higher temperatures, like blowtorching the steel. The weight bearing load is no where near the importance of temperatures that the steel had to face because engineers always over design. Without the steel having high temperatures , the weight will be supported for decades.

i'm not an expert by any means, but I'm pretty sure the towers weren't designed to be able to hold off impact of a 747 filled with jet fuel. Here's an experiment for you to try since your grill isn't designed for it, but yet we need to find out if the steel will fail. Turn your grill on high, cook a few burgers, leave the grill running, eat your dinner, and then go jump up and down on the grill 10 times. Let me know if the steel needed to be at 50% strength or more when it failed.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

you guys ever see an old fireplace grate, the thing that holds the burning logs?

 

they bow very slowly over time from the heat and weight, even though the weight is only a few pounds.

 

you look at them after a few years of use and they are nothing like their original shape.

 

most of them are cast iron, not steel, but the principle is the same with regard to metal softening in temperatures which are well below the metal's melting point.

 

Not a bad try, but after hundreds of hours of fire exposure, the fireplace grate still does the job. It doesn't fail.

[Giants Fan 85]

Ya know .. it's not uncommon for the sewers to blow in NYC. Happens all the time, or a water main breaks and floods ... not a quiet little event in comaprison. Standard stuff.

 

Airplaines flying into buildings ... not so normal.

 

Just FYI. Con Ed did not have a plan for the tower falling. It's not a surprise that there were "loud bangs" afterwards.

 

What's the argument .... that they were leftover explosives from the detonation?

 

Yeah ... that's moronic.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

i'm not an expert by any means, but I'm pretty sure the towers weren't designed to be able to hold off impact of a 747 filled with jet fuel. Here's an experiment for you to try since your grill isn't designed for it, but yet we need to find out if the steel will fail. Turn your grill on high, cook a few burgers, leave the grill running, eat your dinner, and then go jump up and down on the grill 10 times. Let me know if the steel needed to be at 50% strength or more when it failed.

 

The grill holds what it was designed to hold. The world trade center holds what it was designed to hold. If you put 50 world trade center towers on top of one, yes, it would fail. Was it designed to hold an additional 50 towers? No. The grill was not designed to hold a human being jumping on it. Even if there was no fire in the grill, jumping up and down would still make if fail.

 

The towers did hold the impact of the 747 jet with fuel. They stood and according to NIST would continue to stand forever if wasn't for a 2nd event. What was the 2nd event? They (NIST) assumed fire, and did everything in their report to analyze fire. However the temperatures of the steel were not hot enough to fail. They have collected samples from the world trade centers and the samples revealed that they did not get a temperature hot enough that would cause the steel to fail. Low temperature steel

 

I realize some posters have attempted to say that steel can be at low temperatures and fail, but that needs to be proven. I don't believe it, and I don't think too many others believe that steel can fail when it's at 50 percent strength or above.

 

When Oakhill Football says I underestimated the damage, I did not. I went with the most severe damage cases that NIST used in their report. That means 37 of 47 core columns were standing in the south tower and 41 of 47 core columns were standing in the North tower. Even with this highly speculative most severe number NIST uses, the south tower would have to have at least another 10 columns fail due to fire. The north tower would've needed at least 14 more columns to fail by fire for collapse to ensue.

[Snoopy1 0]

Ive said this before but Ill say it again...

 

I find it funny some of you libs rip on Bush for being the dumbest President ever... yet suddenly believe he is capable of organizing the largest hoax in United States History. Oh by the way... doing it all in less than a year too. With no one coming forward.....

 

Sorry.... no.

 

 

What's really funny is how you think everyone whom you disagree with must be a 'lib'.

 

Packers get screwed by a ref, he must be a lib. Raccoons knock over the trash, friggin libs!!!

 

 

[brinett9 0]

Not a bad try, but after hundreds of hours of fire exposure, the fireplace grate still does the job. It doesn't fail.

Actually, I've seen parts of them fail. We used a fireplace a lot when I was a kid.

 

But if you don't want to take a simple real world example in the way it's offered, that's up to you.

 

Steel doesn't soften when heated. Got it.

 

ETA - We should prolly tell all the riveters of the world that their job is impossible.

[Sho Nuff 720]

The grill holds what it was designed to hold. The world trade center holds what it was designed to hold. If you put 50 world trade center towers on top of one, yes, it would fail. Was it designed to hold an additional 50 towers? No. The grill was not designed to hold a human being jumping on it. Even if there was no fire in the grill, jumping up and down would still make if fail.

 

The towers did hold the impact of the 747 jet with fuel. They stood and according to NIST would continue to stand forever if wasn't for a 2nd event. What was the 2nd event? They (NIST) assumed fire, and did everything in their report to analyze fire. However the temperatures of the steel were not hot enough to fail. They have collected samples from the world trade centers and the samples revealed that they did not get a temperature hot enough that would cause the steel to fail. Low temperature steel

 

I realize some posters have attempted to say that steel can be at low temperatures and fail, but that needs to be proven. I don't believe it, and I don't think too many others believe that steel can fail when it's at 50 percent strength or above.

 

When Oakhill Football says I underestimated the damage, I did not. I went with the most severe damage cases that NIST used in their report. That means 37 of 47 core columns were standing in the south tower and 41 of 47 core columns were standing in the North tower. Even with this highly speculative most severe number NIST uses, the south tower would have to have at least another 10 columns fail due to fire. The north tower would've needed at least 14 more columns to fail by fire for collapse to ensue.

 

I would like to know what your degree is in? What tests you have performed on anything related to the WTC?

Then I want you to shut the hell up because you have no expertise in this field, nor have you any personal experience with anything that went on with the WTC...you simply don't buy the explanation that has been given to you, and proven to you....it will not matter how many facts I bring up, or Oak brings up, or anyone brings up...your mind is made up and you simply will not accept anything other than what you now believe.

 

So whats the point?

[Giants Fan 85]

I have a MS from NYU in "Digital Imaging" ... which makes my opinion better than yours on any images you can show me, ALSO I was actually there, and saw the towers on fire from 2 different directions.

 

I think the words an engineer might use are "catastrophic failure", to describe how the towers fell. Did you see the Nova?

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

 

It's all on film. I don't see any evidence of an implosion. I do however see a jet, full of fuel, impact each tower.

 

It's a truss system, and if one floors truss fails, the weight of the above floors crashing down ... I think there's a physics term for it ... "pulverisation". Makes perfect sense to me!

 

You wanna conspiracy ... if it had all gone down 30 minutes later .... be more like 30,000 dead instead of 3,000.

 

All that preparation ... off by 30 minutes. Doesn't make sense ... unless it all went off easier than expected. That's the one thing that doesn't make sense to me. The market opens at 9:30. The towers aren't ... weren't full until 10. It all went down too early. That doesn't make sense.

 

Why?

[jets24 6]

I have a MS from NYU in "Digital Imaging" ... which makes my opinion better than yours on any images you can show me, ALSO I was actually there, and saw the towers on fire from 2 different directions.

 

I think the words an engineer might use are "catastrophic failure", to describe how the towers fell. Did you see the Nova?

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

 

It's all on film. I don't see any evidence of an implosion. I do however see a jet, full of fuel, impact each tower.

 

It's a truss system, and if one floors truss fails, the weight of the above floors crashing down ... I think there's a physics term for it ... "pulverisation". Makes perfect sense to me!

 

You wanna conspiracy ... if it had all gone down 30 minutes later .... be more like 30,000 dead instead of 3,000.

 

All that preparation ... off by 30 minutes. Doesn't make sense ... unless it all went off easier than expected. That's the one thing that doesn't make sense to me. The market opens at 9:30. The towers aren't ... weren't full until 10. It all went down too early. That doesn't make sense.

 

Why?

 

Sure you were!

[What is the deal? 1]

The grill holds what it was designed to hold. The world trade center holds what it was designed to hold. If you put 50 world trade center towers on top of one, yes, it would fail. Was it designed to hold an additional 50 towers? No. The grill was not designed to hold a human being jumping on it. Even if there was no fire in the grill, jumping up and down would still make if fail.

 

The towers did hold the impact of the 747 jet with fuel. They stood and according to NIST would continue to stand forever if wasn't for a 2nd event. What was the 2nd event? They (NIST) assumed fire, and did everything in their report to analyze fire. However the temperatures of the steel were not hot enough to fail. They have collected samples from the world trade centers and the samples revealed that they did not get a temperature hot enough that would cause the steel to fail. Low temperature steel

 

I realize some posters have attempted to say that steel can be at low temperatures and fail, but that needs to be proven. I don't believe it, and I don't think too many others believe that steel can fail when it's at 50 percent strength or above.

 

When Oakhill Football says I underestimated the damage, I did not. I went with the most severe damage cases that NIST used in their report. That means 37 of 47 core columns were standing in the south tower and 41 of 47 core columns were standing in the North tower. Even with this highly speculative most severe number NIST uses, the south tower would have to have at least another 10 columns fail due to fire. The north tower would've needed at least 14 more columns to fail by fire for collapse to ensue.

so they know exactly how the force manipulated the building? What was crashing down inside? I'm not sure any diagram or scientific evidence could actually determine what actually was happening inside the building and what pieces of the building were collapsing and putting pressure on the core structure.

 

Again, I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm pretty sure the buildings were not designed to take on a 747 and stand...just like your grill isn't designed to take you jumping on top of it.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

Actually, I've seen parts of them fail. We used a fireplace a lot when I was a kid.

 

But if you don't want to take a simple real world example in the way it's offered, that's up to you.

 

Steel doesn't soften when heated. Got it.

 

ETA - We should prolly tell all the riveters of the world that their job is impossible.

 

 

I think your real world example is good for showing that metal can be affected by heat over time. However, I think you'd have to agree that the time variable is much higher for the fireplace grate. You're probably talking hundreds of hours of directly applied heat on the grate, whereas, the trade centers were around the 1 hour marker. Try to find a real world example with the low temperatures evidenced on the WTC samples for approximately the same time. I can't find any.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I think your real world example is good for showing that metal can be affected by heat over time. However, I think you'd have to agree that the time variable is much higher for the fireplace grate. You're probably talking hundreds of hours of directly applied heat on the grate, whereas, the trade centers were around the 1 hour marker. Try to find a real world example with the low temperatures evidenced on the WTC samples for approximately the same time. I can't find any.

 

Im not finding any other examples of two buildings struck by 747s either...does that mean it did not happen?

 

What studies have you done?

 

 

Again...mounds of evidence directly refutes the crap you spew...yet you keep posting it...why?