Reply With Quote
Oh, you want to talk about cores being intact, huh?
Look everyone -- some Mormon is posting YouTubes!
Oh, you want to talk about cores being intact, huh?
OK, if you watched this video, at the 2:00 mark the person who made it said WTC 6 could only have been destroyed by a laser.
Are you saying WTC 6 was destroyed by a laser?
Yes or no.
So unconvincing
It's yet another oddity. Very su ious indeed. And I think it's possible that the portion of your brain designed to think critically was destroyed by a laser.
Do you think WTC 6 was destroyed by a laser?
Yes or no.
I think you're trying to be a pest. Or as you would say, "trying hard."
It's your video. The video says WTC 6 must have bee destroyed by a laser.
Do you think WTC 6 was destroyed by a laser?
Yes or no.
For the record, I say no.
See how easy that is?
That you think 1200 ing degrees below the melting point is anywhere close enough for steel to lose structural integrity. Pseudo science.
Yes, I do. I not only think it, I know it does.
"As indicated in the figure, if the steel attains a temperature of 550 degrees Centigrade (1,022 degrees Fahrenheit), the remaining strength is approximately half of the value at ambient temperature. "
Maybe you can wow me with all the data you have done for your testing of the structural properties of steel under various temperatures.This is what happens, bro, when these steel beast catch fire. Stuff collapses, not the steel framework. It takes detonation. You want to give the benefit of doubt to no detonation and quote your pseudo science?
I wasn't tasked with getting to the bottom of 9/11. The govt. was. Their answer: Pretend building 7 never happened because stooges like you would just accept it.You have yet to show how steel reacts when heated, in regards to its weight bearing capacity. This evidence is key to your claims about either building 7 or the twins.I give you evidence and you say "no evidence"
Office fire temperatures, such as building 7 burn at a fairly predictable temperature curve.
The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C
References
[1] Fristrom, R. M., Flame Structure and Process, Oxford University Press, New York (1995).
[2] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., Some Stochastic Properties of Fire Plumes, Fire and Materials 6, 127-134 (1982).
[3] Gaydon, A. G., and Wolfhard, H. G., Flames: Their Structure, Radiation and Temperature, 3rd ed., Chapman and Hall, London (1970).
[4] McCaffrey, B. J., Purely Buoyant Diffusion Flames: Some Experimental Results (NBSIR 79*1910). [U.S.] Natl. Bur. Stand., Gaithersburg, MD (1979).
[5] Audoin, L., Kolb., G., Torero, J. L., and Most., J. M., Average Centerline Temperatures of a Buoyant Pool Fire Obtained by Image Processing of Video Recordings, Fire Safety J. 24, 107-130 (1995).
[6] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., A Study of the Deterministic Properties of Unbounded Fire Plumes, Combustion and Flame 39, 191-209 (1980).
[7] Smith, D. A., and Cox, G., Major Chemical Species in Turbulent Diffusion Flames, Combustion and Flame 91, 226-238 (1992).
[8] Yuan, L.-M., and Cox, G., An Experimental Study of Some Line Fires, Fire Safety J. 27, 123-139 (1997).
[9] Ingason, H., Two Dimensional Rack Storage Fires, pp. 1209-1220 in Fire Safety Science-Proc. Fourth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science, (1994).
[10] Ingason, H., and de Ris, J., Flame Heat Transfer in Storage Geometries, Fire Safety J. (1997).
[11] Heskestad, G., Flame Heights of Fuel Arrays with Combustion in Depth, pp. 427-438 in Fire Safety Science--Proc. Fifth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science (1997).
[12] Babrauskas, V., and Williamson, R. B., Post-Flashover Compartment Fires, Fire and Materials 2, 39-53 (1978); and 3, 1*7 (1979).
[13] Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (ASTM E 119). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
[14] Sullivan, A. L., Ellis, P. F., and Knight, I. K., A Review of Radiant Heat Flux Models Used in Bushfire Applications, Intl. J. Wildland Fire 12, 101-110 (2003).
Building 7 collapsed at approximately 5:20pm, it had been on fire for more than 8 hours.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 08-24-2017 at 11:56 AM.
...
Last edited by RandomGuy; 08-24-2017 at 09:42 AM. Reason: double post
Thanks but lols aren't really note worthy
WTC6 is su ious.
Nor are any of your posts.
The video says WTC 6 must have bee destroyed by a laser.
Do you think WTC 6 was destroyed by a laser?
Yes or no.
Right, my posts are just me mocking you. No surprise you're continously noting that you're not taking note.
WTC 6 is su ious.
Your posts are gimp . Even you know that.
Your posts are lazy re ed . Not sure know it. Either way you're a ing re .
More gimp . You don't respond to the serious . Just gimp pot shots that mean nothing.
See the funny part is you think your posts really mean something.
Yes, I do. I not only think it, I know it does.
"As indicated in the figure, if the steel attains a temperature of 550 degrees Centigrade (1,022 degrees Fahrenheit), the remaining strength is approximately half of the value at ambient temperature. "
Maybe you can wow me with all the data you have done for your testing of the structural properties of steel under various temperatures.This is what happens, bro, when these steel beast catch fire. Stuff collapses, not the steel framework. It takes detonation. You want to give the benefit of doubt to no detonation and quote your pseudo science?
I wasn't tasked with getting to the bottom of 9/11. The govt. was. Their answer: Pretend building 7 never happened because stooges like you would just accept it.You have yet to show how steel reacts when heated, in regards to its weight bearing capacity. This evidence is key to your claims about either building 7 or the twins.I give you evidence and you say "no evidence"
Office fire temperatures, such as building 7 burn at a fairly predictable temperature curve.
The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C
References
[1] Fristrom, R. M., Flame Structure and Process, Oxford University Press, New York (1995).
[2] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., Some Stochastic Properties of Fire Plumes, Fire and Materials 6, 127-134 (1982).
[3] Gaydon, A. G., and Wolfhard, H. G., Flames: Their Structure, Radiation and Temperature, 3rd ed., Chapman and Hall, London (1970).
[4] McCaffrey, B. J., Purely Buoyant Diffusion Flames: Some Experimental Results (NBSIR 79*1910). [U.S.] Natl. Bur. Stand., Gaithersburg, MD (1979).
[5] Audoin, L., Kolb., G., Torero, J. L., and Most., J. M., Average Centerline Temperatures of a Buoyant Pool Fire Obtained by Image Processing of Video Recordings, Fire Safety J. 24, 107-130 (1995).
[6] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., A Study of the Deterministic Properties of Unbounded Fire Plumes, Combustion and Flame 39, 191-209 (1980).
[7] Smith, D. A., and Cox, G., Major Chemical Species in Turbulent Diffusion Flames, Combustion and Flame 91, 226-238 (1992).
[8] Yuan, L.-M., and Cox, G., An Experimental Study of Some Line Fires, Fire Safety J. 27, 123-139 (1997).
[9] Ingason, H., Two Dimensional Rack Storage Fires, pp. 1209-1220 in Fire Safety Science-Proc. Fourth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science, (1994).
[10] Ingason, H., and de Ris, J., Flame Heat Transfer in Storage Geometries, Fire Safety J. (1997).
[11] Heskestad, G., Flame Heights of Fuel Arrays with Combustion in Depth, pp. 427-438 in Fire Safety Science--Proc. Fifth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science (1997).
[12] Babrauskas, V., and Williamson, R. B., Post-Flashover Compartment Fires, Fire and Materials 2, 39-53 (1978); and 3, 1*7 (1979).
[13] Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (ASTM E 119). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
[14] Sullivan, A. L., Ellis, P. F., and Knight, I. K., A Review of Radiant Heat Flux Models Used in Bushfire Applications, Intl. J. Wildland Fire 12, 101-110 (2003).
Building 7 collapsed at approximately 5:20pm, it had been on fire for more than 8 hours.
Still doesn't look like evidence concerning the strength of steel when heated.
It's almost as if you don't have any evidence, and are too lazy to read.
Strange.
Enough man, it wasnt enough to melt and take down the whole 500 meter building, first of all the whole tower wasnt on fire so you cant make projections like ¨YES THE WHOLE BUILDING WAS ON FIRE FOR X HOURS AND THE CARBONARO EFFECT HAPPENED SO IT ALL WENT SOUTH!¨
Also you dont go thru the steel so easily, there is cement/bricks/concrete/ceramic sucking all that fire first, is not like fire gets the steel that quickly.
Fire can get to the some steel pretty quickly when a plane crashes through a building.
Wrong, it may get some parts but then you have cement/concrete/bricks/ceramics everywhere so you cant make an easy formula like its a scientific fact.
You certainly can't dismiss the prospect given the mass of the planes, their speed and the nature of the fireproofing, which in many cases was just sprayed directly on the steel. It's not impossible to model the results of an impact since so many factors are known.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
