FACT: Steel melts at 2800 degrees F.
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF, not hot enough to melt steel (2750ºF).
NEXT?
9/11 Terror
Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!
Part II
by J. McMichael
[email protected]
Part I was formerly (but no longer) available at
http://world.care2.com/jmcmichael/files/index.html
but remains available on this Serendipity site here.
Some people have written to me (or commented publicly) that the collapse of the World Trade Center was a perfectly normal event caused by the heat of the fire.
Let me recall a few details to the reader's attention before answering that statement.
Citing structural engineer Chris Wise, the BBC web page stated that steel supports in the WTC reached 1500 degrees Fahrenheit and melted (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1540044.stm). That is of course not correct, and I provided a link to an on-line chemistry chart to show that steel melts closer to 2800 degrees F.
Note that the statement (that the WTC steel melted) is not mine: The statement comes from the BBC page, citing Chris Wise, and from others on television.
The critics have pointed out that steel does not MELT at 1500 F, but it does soften and lose its strength, enough to cause the towers to collapse. We are asked to believe, as one Australian put it, that steel supports turn to licorice when heated in a fire.
Corus Steel is a trans-national corporation that markets structural steel (http://www.corusconstruction.com/). One graph on their web page shows the diminishing strength of steel as it is heated. http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm
Note that structural steel at 550 degrees C (1022 F) has 60% of the strength of steel at normal temperatures. This weakening of steel when heated is supposedly responsible for the catastrophic collapse of the towers. The statement generates three questions to be answered in order to determine whether this phenomenon could cause the collapse of the World Trade Center:
1. How much strength would the steel have to lose for the WTC to collapse?
2. What temperature would the steel have to reach to occasion this loss of strength?
3. What was the temperature of the fire in the WTC; i.e., did it reach the critically weakening temperature?
Question 1:
In the original article, I cited my own experience that a support device must be capable of bearing three times the maximum load that would ever be applied.
It turns out that this rule-of-thumb is applicable only to dynamic loads, not static (structural) loads of commercial buildings. Since then, I have been informed by a commercial structural engineer that the standard ratio for static loads is five, not three. That is, if a bridge is rated to carry 1 ton, it should be capable of bearing 5 tons without collapsing at the time the bridge is built.
Going back to the fire at the WTC, we can see that reducing the steel structure to 60% its rated strength should NOT have weakened it to catastrophic collapse, because at 60% it would still support three times the rated load. The steel structure would have to be reduced to 20% of its rated strength to collapse.
Thus, even if the fire had heated the steel to 550 degrees C (1022 F), that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.
Question 2:
The Corus page on fire vs. steel supports (http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm) shows that the steel would have to be heated to about 720 degrees C (1320 F) to weaken the steel to 20% of its cool strength.
The text on that page discusses another change in the steel above 550 degrees C (1022 F): It looses elasticity and becomes plastic. Elasticity means that when the steel is bent, it returns to its original shape; it springs back. Plasticity means that the steel is permanently deformed and does not spring back to the original shape.
Springing back or not, our only concern with this page is to determine the point on the graph where the steel would be weakened to 20% its original strength, and that point is 720 degrees C (1320 F).
For steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F) is an important threshold, however, and we should not be glib with it. If a steel tower were heated to 550 C, loss of elasticity could mean that the tower would not spring back to the original shape after a gust of wind, and a series of buffets might cause the tower to fail -- if the strain exceeded the reduced strength of the hot steel.
Question 3:
Now let us make a guess on the actual heat of the fire.
Fortunately, a number of studies have been done under very similar conditions. In Europe, multi-storied "car parks" are often built of steel, and the possibility of vehicle fire is a distinct possibility. A parked vehicle, loaded with gasoline, diesel, tires, engine oil, engine tar, upholstery, hydraulic fluid, etc. can cause a fire that seems very hot. A number of other vehicles could be parked close to the burning one, and they too could catch fire, with a general conflagration. Any number of cars could contain almost any household items from shopping, etc.
These materials are similar to the materials we would expect in the burning offices of the WTC: jet fuel (which is a refined kerosene, very similar to the diesel used in some European cars), oil, upholstery, etc.
A summary of the results of these studies is published on the Corus page. Go to http://www.corusconstruction.com/ and click on "Fire". Individual articles are listed across the top of the window. The fourth article, "Fire in Car Parks," discusses the temperatures of "any fires that are likely to occur" in a car park (http://www.corusconstruction.com/carparks/cp006.htm) [this web page is now at http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_137.htm].
Presumably, one car could catch fire and inflame other cars parked closely nearby. As explained below, "The maximum temperatures reached [in actual test fires] in open sided car parks in four countries" was 360 degrees C (680 F), and structural steel has "sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur."
Here is the relevant paragraph, complete: "Steel-framed car parks have been rigorously fire tested in a number of countries (Table 3). These tests demonstrate that most unprotected steel in open sided steel-framed car parks has sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur. Table 3 lists the maximum temperatures reached in open sided car park tests in four countries. These can be compared with the characteristic failure temperatures for beams carrying insulating floor slabs and columns of 620 [degrees] C and 550 [degrees] C respectively."
Note that the description does not limit the duration of the fire. From this it does not appear to matter whether the fire burned all week or just for two hours. No mention is made, as some people have suggested (from erroneous interpretation of other graphs involving time), that prolonged heat brings about progressive weakening of steel.
Here is the data from Corus' Table 3 (beams are horizontal members, columns are vertical):
Full scale fire tests Maximum measured steel temperature
Country Beam Column
UK 275 C (527 F) 360 C (680 F)
Japan 245 C (473 F) 242 C (467 F)
USA 226 C (438 F) -
Australia 340 C (644 F) 320 C (608 F)
A fire in a steel car park is a very imprecise event, and the heating of the steel supports varied widely in the tests. The temperature of (horizontal) beams varied from 226 C in the USA to 340 C in Australia; and the temperature of (vertical) columns varied from 242 C in Japan to 360 C in the UK. None of the steel was protected with the thermal insulation that is commonly used in office buildings, including the WTC.
To my mind, this is definitive answer: the maximum temperature in the unprotected steel supports in those test fires was 360 degrees C (680 F), and that is a long way from the first critical threshold in structural steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F).
Some may argue that there was much more fuel involved in the WTC events that in a car park. There was also much more steel involved, the support columns were more massive, and they were protected with insulation.
I think the case is made: The fire did not weaken the WTC structure sufficiently to cause the collapse of the towers.
— J. McMichael
Detailed information of the construction World Trade Center (with many photographs) can be found at http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildi...de_Center.html
This article was copied from
http://world.care2.com/jmcmichael/files/carpark.html
The World Trade Center Demolition
and the So-Called War on Terrorism
Serendipity Home Page
As much as I like this thread, I'm going to put an end to a significant portion.
Years ago, I played the roll of town blacksmith in episodes of Gunsmoke (by the way, Kitty was a man). Even though the fire pit was fake, my director assured me that heated steel would bend. Now, If you can't trust your director, then find another line of work.
Mouse is right. Every other time a skyscraper, whose load is borne by the exoskeleton of the building rather than thick columns running through the middle as in older buildings, like for example the Empire State Building, has had a Boeing 767 puncture a big chunk of the load-bearing exterior while flying through at 500 miles an hour, then had a huge internal fire to weaken the remaining members, that skyscraper has survived.
Thin steel like a sword, or a butter knife does not need heat to bend. That type of steel does not go into building a frame structure to support many offices.
The bottom-line is, Even if the Bush salad tossers were right about the top beams melting from the jet fuel? It would not explain way the beams on the lower floors were sheared off at a 90% angle. you can only cut steel beams at a 90% angle using thermal shape charges.
That's why the steel was shipped off out of NY in a hurry and inspectors where told to stay away so no one was able to test for residue of explosives.
I can't wait till they find some on the new beams they located many in here will have to eat crow or find a new screen name from embarrassment alone.
Another way steel can be sheared off that way is if the upper floors of a skyscraper pancake down on it.
Don't hold your breath.
This is how many of the steel beams should have looked like.
This is how many were found before they were shipped off in a hurry.
Notice the melted thermate around the sheared off beam in the picture
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...icial%26sa%3DN
You keep telling yourself that bro.
Besides how will we know that if a Steel building has never collapsed?
Here I even circled it for Chump and his blind followers.
Okay, let's set aside the arguments of whether the steel melted or softened or just collapsed from fright. Have you conspiracy nuts ever watched a show on how they do controlled demolitions?
I watched one where they were demolishing old casinos in Vegas. Controlled demolitions are an exact science! They have to examine blueprints to determine where to place the explosives and use exact calculations to determine the order of the explosions. It took DAYS to place the explosives and wire them to the detonators - and this was in an EMPTY building with the explosives in PLAIN SIGHT!!!
Now, how did "they" accomplish this with not just one, not two, but THREE buildings without being found out? And where was the guy (or guys) that hit the detonator? And, considering the minutia of debris found intact (pictures, wallets, etc.), why wasn't there ANY evidence of the explosives devices?
There are just too many variables and WAY TOO MANY people who would have to be involved in a plot of this magnitude - someone would have blabbed by now - think of the money and fame they would have! There's absolutely no way this could have been pulled off!
Originally Posted by stallion4
And so? Controlled Demolitions Inc, the largest demolition company in the world has gone on record to say that the term "pull" is a controlled demolition term meaning to "pull down" a building.
Here's what Larry Silverstein, the person who signed the lease to the WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, said about Building 7:
Larry Silverstein
“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CahEva8zQas
Silverstein is lying. He never got a call from the fire department commander asking him what the fire department should do. His statement about that is absurd on its face.
Just what exactly are you trying to say here? Pull yourself together for a minute and THINK about it. Are you saying this man who recently purchased this building was somehow in charge of demolishing it? And further, was the fire department in on it as well? Please try to follow the logic here, it makes NO SENSE.
Quote:
The "it" in "Pull it" is referring to the building, WTC7.
"Pull" is a known demolition term -period. He goes on to say "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”
So after the building was "pulled" they then watched the building "collapse", exactly like a controlled demolition using explosives.
Here we see stallion demonstrating a remarkable understanding of the english language. When one thing in a sentance comes before the next, we can assume the first thing preceded the 2nd thing. Brilliant!
You state that "Pull" is a known demolition term. Why can't you admit that it does not mean "explode" or "detonate"??? You just had it pointed out that experts disagreed with you. When I say the word "transmission" it is reasonable to assume I'm talking about a device used to aid the transfer of power from a car's engine to it's drivetrain. However: transmission is also used in radio terminology. To assume one over the other, when you have experts that point out you are wrong, is ludicrous. You are not thinking clearly.
Quote:
We have witnesses who heard, saw, and felt explosions seconds before the building fell, which is consistent with controlled demolition using explosives.
It's also consistent with collapse due to massive damage.
Quote:
We have video taped evidence of the building falling exactly the way a building falls during controlled demolition using explosives.
Why is it that the vast majority of people disagree with you? Including experts? Why are we still going over this?
Quote:
We also have photographic evidence that the building's steel columns were "cut" using explosives.
We even have audio taped evidence of explosions occurring before WTC7 falls down, which is consistent with controlled demolition using explosives.
You have no such evidence of the building columns being cut before the collapse.
Loud noises before collapse would be expected, as things are breaking and giving way inside. Please think before you post.
Quote:
And we have several experts who agree that WTC7 fell down because there were explosives planted in the building.
Do I have to debunk yet another set of your 'experts'? I've done it on many of these threads already, and you never respond, so it hardly seems worth it.
Quote:
As far as ImplosionWorld.com, they've been pushing the company line for some time, which also makes them suspect for possibly participating in the 9/11 cover-up -- and once the 9/11 criminals are brought to justice, all persons who helped them cover-up their crime will be dealt with.
Someone who is an expert in the field, disagrees with you, and because of that you accuse them of being involved in the coverup?!?!?! Is this making any sense? I can't wait to hear your reasons behind this....
Quote:
And funny you should mention ImplosionWorld.com, because Danny Jowenko the demo expert who said WTC7 was indeed a "Controlled Demolition" using explosives, is mentioned on their website as being one of their contributors. And Jowenko has explained that he'd never even heard of WTC7 before he was asked about it during an television interview (2006), so it seems like ImplosionWorld.com didn't consult everyone in the demo world, including experts that they listed on their website.
Interesting. That to definately confirms that implosionworld.com was and is part of the conspiracy. Because they failed to consult a Dutch expert who had very little knowledge of the events as they happened. That makes perfect sense.
Quote:
Once again, this is what Controlled Demolition expert Danny Jowenko has stated about Building 7:
"...it starts from below. They have simply blown away columns."
"This is controlled demolition."
"A team of experts did this."
"This is professional work, without any doubt."
Aren't you being a bit dishonest here? Why don't you post the entire thing? Jowenko says that he does NOT think WTC1 and 2 look like controlled demolitions. But of course you won't mention that, because you like to pick and chose. Then he says that WTC7 does, and was shocked when they tell him it happened on 9/11. He had no idea! That's how informed an individual he was.
I've seen the unedited interview with him, and in it he offers several speculations why the building may have been demolished. One of those was that because there was a fire in the building, steel in it is weakened and perhaps the owner thought it was too expensive to replace it. And he thought this footage was from some other date.
Before they give him additional info, he's sure it's CD. When they tell him the building fell on 9/11, he starts to doubt, and tries to figure out the number of people needed to do it that quickly.
Then they tell him the building burned all the way to the end, and his doubts increase: "that's strange", "I have no explanation for it"
When the reporter asked him about the "squibs", Jowenko at first said it was possible they were caused by explosives but immediately changed his opinion and said that it doesn't make any sense to plant explosives that high under the cir stances and that the "squibs" must have been the result of something else.
So are you going to admit that you are being dishonest here?
Quote:
And here is what Structural Analysis experts have recently said about Building 7:
"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*. And also Jörg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives".
Bold is mine.
So they weren’t there, carried out no tests, spoke to no witnesses and have not read a single do ent on it, but have seen a video and drawn their conclusion, way to go.
Quote:
The building was destroyed using explosives -period. Anyone who can't see that is either lying or in denial.
That is a huge insult to the large number of victims, experts involved in the investigation, firefighters, police officers, etc, who don't support your theory.
Since you like videos so much, try this:
In another video clip, Ashleigh Banfield of MSNBC is interviewing a woman when WTC 7 collapses in the background. Banfield: "This is it!" Newsman Brian Williams: "What we've been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened. We've been watching number 7 World Trade, which was part of the ancillary damage of the explosion and collapse of the other two." Watch it here: http://tinyurl.com/o58sa
Wow so this newscaster must have been in on it as well!
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. – Capt. Chris Boyle http://tinyurl.com/eofwh
And him!
Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the col-lapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn't want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn't even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn't know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o'clock or so, but we had every-body backed away by then. –Deputy Chief Peter Hayden http://tinyurl.com/zwtrs
And him!
The next thing I did was we saw a fire starting to show at windows in 7 World Trade Center, decided to go in and try and see if there was anybody in the building and/or put out the fires, and we did a search from floor to floor of 7 World Trade Center passing fire on floors 3, 7, 9. The standpipes had no water. We tried to extinguish a few fires with cans. When we got to 11, there was just too much smoke and we decided that, without water, if we went any higher, we'd be on fool's mission.
So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. –Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler http://tinyurl.com/q2eb6
And him!
I remember at that time also they were worried about Building 7 because when the second tower came down, they were worried about parts of -- actually, when the first tower came down, they were worried about parts of Building 7 collapsing, so I remember getting into Building 7 and searching. –Firefighter Anthony Salerno http://tinyurl.com/lzj4t
And him!
That was another problem, to wait for building seven to come down, because that was unsecure. It was about 5:30 that building came down. –Paremedic Steven Pilla http://tinyurl.com/odgdp
And him!
After my role on Gunsmoke ended with the series cancellation, I was forced to accept a service industry position at the WTC.
That, my friend, is the laundry chute.
Wait a second...
That firefighter looks HUGE in that photo! Look at it...
His shoulder width is WIDER than the beam to the right of him! Surely this tower was not supported by beams that were thinner than an average sized man!
Could it be that this was a staged photo in front of a small-scale model of the demolished building?
That's where you lost me as subject for any intelligent debate.
And why is he not wearing protective goggles??
What is "thermate"?
Now even pictures are not good enough? Your really reaching out there for answers aren't you?
Besides how thick are the metal legs to that chair that is supporting your fat ass off the floor?
Give it up bro you can't argue with the facts, you need to get off the Chump band wagon and make your move to the side of reality of what really took place and save what little is left of your reputation as a smart man.
After all, at the end of all this the truth will finally set you free.
thermIte or super thermite
Steel from collapsed building
Steel from tower one WTC after charges were used.
You still don't get it?
The "melted thermate" is actually slag from what I would say was an arc gouger (instead of an oxy-acetylene cutting torch, the steel is too thick) used to cut off that beam.
I don't think that incendiary weapons can make precise cuts like that.
The "melted thermate" is actually slag from what I would say was an arc gouger (instead of an oxy-acetylene cutting torch, the steel is too thick) used to cut off that beam.
I don't think that incendiary weapons can make precise cuts like that.
Quick Mouse, change usernames so you can argue this point.
That's not a steel beam. It's Pucksitawny Phil's summer home.
Jet fule can only burn for so long, But Thermal heat can last for weeks as shown in this picture,
WTC Thermal Imagery
Pretty
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
