Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
desmo_2

The effects of fire and heat on load bearing concrete/steel

125 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[HINON] RivertheRoyal 2,865
6,019 posts

Occam's Razor.

What's simpler? That a couple of planes hitting a couple of buildings collapsed them, or that the government staged a complex series of conspiracies in order to force us into war by way of killing thousands of our own? 

Now, I don't know about you, but I just don't think our government is that capable. In fact, I would be astonished if they actually got something done for once.  And I do think that a rather large airplane would do enough damage to a building as to bring it down.    

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,894 posts
2,133 battles

Even if there is any sort of truth to the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" argument (which I have very little credence in), the sheer force of a great big commercial jet airliner hitting a building at high speed would be plenty enough to collapse it. As well, the electrical fires and the explosion on impact would also do a ton of damage. Finally, while I think that the U.S. government didn't know about what happened, I do think they quickly used it to try to justify military action in the Middle East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XXX] DeathLord1969 84
685 posts
1,965 battles
4 minutes ago, 1Sherman said:

Even if there is any sort of truth to the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" argument

It's can't. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough. " FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F )"

Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,894 posts
2,133 battles
Just now, DeathLord1969 said:

It's can't. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough. " FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F )"

Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

 

Read the rest of my argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XXX] DeathLord1969 84
685 posts
1,965 battles
Just now, 1Sherman said:

 

Read the rest of my argument.

I'm only quoting about the melting part which is why I bolded/underlined & italicized the word melt.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HINON] RivertheRoyal 2,865
6,019 posts

For anyone who uses the jet fuel argument to indicate that 9/11 was an inside job or whatever, here's the rest of that article DeathLord posted. 

 

Quote

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,894 posts
2,133 battles
3 minutes ago, DeathLord1969 said:

I'm only quoting about the melting part which is why I bolded/underlined & italicized the word melt.

 

 

The point of my argument is that I don't care about that particular aspect. There were several other factors that did the job just as effectively (if not better).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOLF2] DiddleDum 106
490 posts
5,274 battles
2 minutes ago, DeathLord1969 said:

I'm only quoting about the melting part which is why I bolded/underlined & italicized the word melt.

 

Yes, and I pointed that out on Page 2 that the conspiracy argument is always static.   A piece of steel and flame.   What's always left off is the 325,000 lb plane, impacting said steel frame at 500mph.   Then, add the flame.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XXX] DeathLord1969 84
685 posts
1,965 battles
2 minutes ago, 1Sherman said:

 

The point of my argument is that I don't care about that particular aspect. There were several other factors that contributed to the buildings going down.

My point was that people throw around the claim that jet fuel can melt steel when it is false. Jet fuel alone cannot do so. I'm not arguing about other factors.

Edited by DeathLord1969

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,894 posts
2,133 battles
1 minute ago, DiddleDum said:

Yes, and I pointed that out on Page 2 that the conspiracy argument is always static.   A piece of steel and flame.   What's always left off is the 325,000 lb plane, impacting said steel frame at 500mph.   Then, add the flame.   

 

That's the point I don't think Deathlord is getting. I do not care about the jet fuel part. I care about the part where a jet airliner rams into a building and explodes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FOXEH] Kitsunelegend 2,649
5,986 posts
1,243 battles
4 minutes ago, RivertheRoyal said:

For anyone who uses the jet fuel argument to indicate that 9/11 was an inside job or whatever, here's the rest of that article DeathLord posted. 

 

 

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why actual real world science and logic, trumps all conspiracies the world over.

 

Thanks River, have a +1 in an appropriate gif format!

12sx23S.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XXX] DeathLord1969 84
685 posts
1,965 battles
2 minutes ago, 1Sherman said:

 

That's the point I don't think Deathlord is getting. I do not care about the jet fuel part. I care about the part where a jet airliner rams into a building and explodes.

So why even point out the claim then if you don't care about it let alone are even referring to it to begin with?

You posted "even if there is any truth to it" and I posted that there is not any proof that jet fuel melts steel.

I give you an actual fact & you get all huffy about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HINON] RivertheRoyal 2,865
6,019 posts
Just now, DeathLord1969 said:

So why even point out the claim then if you don't care about it let alone are even referring to it to begin with?

You posted "even if there is any truth to it" and I posted that there is not any proof that jet fuel melts steel.

I give you an actual fact & you get all huffy about it.

 

I think it's because whenever anyone says anything along the lines of "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams", it's normally followed by "so 9/11 was staged and the buildings were rigged." 

It's a case of people jumping to assumptions, maybe? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XXX] DeathLord1969 84
685 posts
1,965 battles

People always assume too much, even when it comes to governments. We have NO clue what goes on behind doors at any government location.

There's a crap ton of info about this that does not add up. People on the ground stating no markings on the planes. Firemen at ground zero stating explosions in the lobby.

There were reports of another plane circling during the attack at a higher altitude.

And for those that think there were no planes, there was a documentary being filmed at the time of the first plane's impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SYN] MrDeaf 2,564
13,562 posts
8,729 battles

There is a saying... "Don't trust the truss"

As in, certain structural designs are more prone to catastrophic failure, once a small amount of damage has been done.
Trusses are used to make buildings lighter while retaining rigidity, but they are very poor at handling structural damage.

 

The easiest example is an aluminum can.
Aluminum cans can withstand a significant amount of force being exerted upon them when their skin is intact, but as soon as a small dent is made into the skin, the can will no longer be able to hold the weight.

tubes maintain strength with surface tension that is evenly distributed across the circumference and are very light for their strength, but if there is a dent, it causes the force to be directed towards the imperfection and will cause the tube to buckle.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIMP] _cthulhu_ 75
613 posts
5,849 battles
2 hours ago, Elegant_Winter said:

I am convinced I'm right, because my thoughts regarding 9/11 are tied to other thoughts, and then those thoughts are tied to other thoughts. There's an enormous web of thoughts, and all of those thoughts have substantive reasoning and knowledge to support them.

Unfortunately, not one of those thoughts is based in engineering or physics or facts.

Sorry to inform you, but people who design and build things for a living have already put out all the information regarding this.

Go look it up.

Also if I recall correctly building 7 took debris strike which started a fire in the upper story fuel store of a generator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
akh101 135
Members, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
1,558 posts
3,462 battles
17 minutes ago, DeathLord1969 said:

People always assume too much, even when it comes to governments. We have NO clue what goes on behind doors at any government location.

There's a crap ton of info about this that does not add up. People on the ground stating no markings on the planes. Firemen at ground zero stating explosions in the lobby.

There were reports of another plane circling during the attack at a higher altitude.

And for those that think there were no planes, there was a documentary being filmed at the time of the first plane's impact.

Trusting you make it any better?

 

so part of that group that also thinks  "Pear harbor was inside job", or "moon landing were faked", or better yet "JFK was assassinated by our own government"

 

Yea no thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIMP] _cthulhu_ 75
613 posts
5,849 battles
5 hours ago, Elegant_Winter said:

You're assuming the plane was traveling at its maximum speed, which is very unlikely, considering the turning and whatnot that had to be done; and then still, look at other plane crashes. It's not difficult.

It's obvious that I'm concerned with the truth here, which is a perfectly honorable motive. I also don't believe the Holocaust happened. That'll give you another excuse to curse at me. Feel free.

They have pictures and Nazi records of the death camps, the records of shipment numbers of people etc.

By what reasoning do you refute the perpetrators own evidence?

 

Explain how this even exists -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genickschussanlage

Also - read this book - Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland

ISBN: 0060995068 (ISBN13: 9780060995065)

Or

'Masters of Death': Himmler's Willing Executioners -

ISBN 10: 0375708227 ISBN 13: 9780375708220

 

Edited by _cthulhu_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XXX] DeathLord1969 84
685 posts
1,965 battles
2 minutes ago, akh101 said:

Trusting you make it any better?

 

so part of that group that also thinks  "Pear harbor was inside job", or "moon landing were faked", or better yet "JFK was assassinated by our own government"

 

Yea no thanks

There were live interviews with people there during the attacks that claimed what I posted above. Not written interviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XXX] DeathLord1969 84
685 posts
1,965 battles
2 minutes ago, _cthulhu_ said:

They have pictures and Nazi records of the death camps, the records of shipment numbers of people etc.

By what reasoning do you refute the perpetrators own evidence?

Don't forget that the death camps still exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIMP] _cthulhu_ 75
613 posts
5,849 battles
1 minute ago, DeathLord1969 said:

Don't forget that the death camps still exist.

Oh sheisse! Thats right!! The camps are still there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
akh101 135
Members, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
1,558 posts
3,462 battles
Just now, DeathLord1969 said:

There were live interviews with people there during the attacks that claimed what I posted above. Not written interviews.

and SURE those accounts are actually true to the word  or been edit to fit one argument? thank about that now.

1 minute ago, DeathLord1969 said:

Don't forget that the death camps still exist.

umm as in active? being use right now, where?

if your talking about places like Auschwitz, there reason why it still here other like it, Tto remind us the horrors of genocide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FLOAT] Chobittsu 2,103
In AlfaTesters
4,828 posts

I don't know what I enjoy more about this thread; the talk about controversial subject matter or the fact that one of this forums most prolific trolls is a 9/11 truther.    x'D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XXX] DeathLord1969 84
685 posts
1,965 battles
1 minute ago, akh101 said:

and SURE those accounts are actually true to the word  or been edit to fit one argument? thank about that now.

umm as in active? being use right now, where?

if your talking about places like Auschwitz, there reason why it still here other like it, Tto remind us the horrors of genocide.

Are you sure they were not? These video interviews were taken the day of. In these videos, not a single wisp of any conspiracies were mentioned. So how can they be edited to fit an argument without even bringing one up to begin with?

Who the hell said anything about the camps still being active? Trying to start something with that crap?

My point in mentioning the camps, since you so badly missed it, was to show that there is huge physical proof that it happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SYN] MrDeaf 2,564
13,562 posts
8,729 battles
25 minutes ago, akh101 said:

Trusting you make it any better?

 

so part of that group that also thinks  "Pear harbor was inside job", or "moon landing were faked", or better yet "JFK was assassinated by our own government"

 

Yea no thanks

JFK was an accident.

Oswald didn't kill JFK.

One of the SS guards slipped and accidentally shot JFK fatally when reacting to the gun fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×