Page 43 of 133 FirstFirst ... 333940414243444546475393 ... LastLast
Results 1,051 to 1,075 of 3318
  1. #1051
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    How do you know?

    Did you check throught he rubble?

    They found partially evaporated steel, which is proof of explosives.
    Do you have eyewitness accounts of visible explosive devices?

    9th time this question has been asked and not answered.

    Is your case so weak that you cannot answer ONE question honestly?

  2. #1052
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    Of course the same firefighters who are expert enough in bombs to rely on to "prove" explosive devices when they hear explosions, can't be relied on to recognize bomb components in the rubble during the weeks that they were in charge of the "pile".

    Maybe Mr. Galilei has an account from a firefighter who saw the remnants of the explosive divices. They were sifting through the rubble for weeks, surely if there were explosive devices rigged on 220 floors of the twin towers some part of those explosive devices would remain...

  3. #1053
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    Unless of course the firefighters were in on it too... They work for the government after all.

  4. #1054
    I love J.T. smeagol's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Post Count
    11,756
    Unless of course the firefighters were in on it too... They work for the government after all.
    They cannot be "in it" because it was not a conspiracy. It was an outright military operation . . .

  5. #1055
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    DO YOU HAVE ANY EYEWITNESSES WHO SAW THE OFFICE FIRE MELT THE GIANT STEEL BEAMS?
    Did you read any of the comprehensive theories how steel could melt under such conditions?

    Consider all the kinetic energy involved. The vast majority of it is strait down. This energy is converted to heat. This heat can be enough to melt small quan ies of steel, in areas that were hit right.

    Ever take a wire clothes hanger and bend it back and fourth in the same spot? It gets rather hot, doesn't it... Now consider the magnitudes more of energy as steel falls, bends, impacts, etc.

  6. #1056
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Killing people is perfectly legal in military operations.
    Real military operations against the public are illegal.

  7. #1057
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Do you have any eyewitnesses that can testify to seeing visible explosive devices?

    6th time this question is asked.
    I'm not even asking for eye witnesses. I would like to see the forensic evidence to back up the screw loose peoples claim, yet he has no proof to offer.

  8. #1058
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I suppose explosives were planted on these transformers:




  9. #1059
    Student of Liberty Galileo's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Post Count
    5,967
    I suppose explosives were planted on these transformers:



    New evidence suggests second shooter killed RFK

    READ MORE & WATCH THE MSNBC VIDEO:

    http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scient...tion_0326.html

  10. #1060
    Student of Liberty Galileo's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Post Count
    5,967
    Real military operations against the public are illegal.
    they should be, but John Yoo wrote a legal memo arguing they are legal.

  11. #1061
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    they should be, but John Yoo wrote a legal memo arguing they are legal.
    I know he has made claims liberals don't like, but are true since the president is the executor of law. As for military actions against the public, I never heard him making such a claim. Can you support that?

    The president can suspends such laws and he best have good reasons to or else he would be impeached. Wouldn't any military force against known innocent people be a direct violation of the cons ution?

  12. #1062
    Student of Liberty Galileo's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Post Count
    5,967
    I know he has made claims liberals don't like, but are true since the president is the executor of law. As for military actions against the public, I never heard him making such a claim. Can you support that?

    The president can suspends such laws and he best have good reasons to or else he would be impeached. Wouldn't any military force against known innocent people be a direct violation of the cons ution?
    The war on drugs is a direct violation of the cons ution.

  13. #1063
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    The war on drugs is a direct violation of the cons ution.
    No it's not. It falls under law making ability of commerce.

    How about answering my question about the transformers. The explosions sound the same to most people, so were explosives placed on them?

  14. #1064
    What's the Word? Don Quixote's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    3,339
    There's no convincing these people -- it's like they're in a cult. Thankfully, the ones who believe that GW knew about 9-11, or even orchestrated it, are a very small minority.

    These people will believe anything bad about the Bush Administration.

  15. #1065
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Do you have eyewitness accounts of visible explosive devices?

    9th time this question has been asked and not answered.

    Is your case so weak that you cannot answer ONE question honestly?

    Seek and ye shall find...


  16. #1066
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Calculations from a real physicists...Sorry RG

    Consider the following: if the pancaking effect caused the total building failure, why is it that no video of either of the WTC collapses shows any sign of stutter between floor collapses, which should have been very apparent especially in the first few floors of collapse when the speed of gravitational collapse was small? Consider also that apologists for the official conspiracy theory propose that 30% of the gravitational collapse energy was necessary to create the pyroclastic cloud of debris: that is, in their own analysis, this energy came out of the gravitational energy. This means that the time of fall would have been slowed further than what was observed. When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to pulverize concrete essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g.

    Subs uting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g’ x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g’ = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g’ = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g’ will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t’, then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g’ x (t’ exp2) =
    (1/2) x 0.7g x (t’ exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t’ exp2), or (t/t’) = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t’ = 1.195 t.

    Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.

    The implication from the above is that there were major energy sources other than gravitational involved in the WTC towers collapses. Certainly that is the conclusion of J. Hoffman in his thorough discussion of the north WTC tower dust cloud [Ref. (8)]. By calculating the major sources and sinks observed, particularly the sink of the pyroclastic cloud expansion, Hoffman establishes that a large amount of energy had to be available to drive that expansion, in a (minimum) range of 2,706,000 kWh to 11,724,000 kWh (see his Summary table). Hoffman does not propose an energy source to balance that sink. In Appendix B, an estimate, for discussion purposes only, of the amount of thermite-equivalent to provide this energy source is discussed. It is large, but physically possible.
    Physics911


    Structure of WTC Columns and Their Metal Mass


    The best on-line discussion resource found for these calculations was at Ref. (10). According to this source the inner core consisted of from 44 to 47 box columns (the exact number and layout is not known; the architectural firm had not released the construction drawings). The dimensions of the columns reduced in size with increasing height, changing to I-beams above the 85th floor. The above website article assumes (generously) that each core box column has the following (average) X-section: 12"wide x 36"deep x 2" thick.

    If w = box column width, d = depth, and t = thickness, then the X-sectional steel area is given by

    A = [d x t + (w-2 x t) x t] x 2. For d = 36", t = 2" and w = 12", then

    A = [36" x 2" + (12"-2 x 2") x 2] x 2 = 176 in2 = 1.222 ft2.

    Floor height was 12ft, so we choose for discussion sake, a 12′ high box column in these calculations. Note that multiple floors could have had thermite-type compounds placed there. Also, no more than a foot portion, rather than a full 12 ft of column would be necessary to collapse that floor. Also, complete melt of a column portion is not necessary to cause collapse. So, per floor, per column there is a steel volume V = 12′ x 1.222 ft2 = 14.67 ft3. Also, note that the internal X-sectional area of a box column is given by

    Aint = [d-(2 x t)] x [w- (2 x t)], and the internal volume by Vint = 12′ x [d - (2 x t)] x [w - (2 x t)].

    Here, Vint = 12′ x [36"-2 x 2"] x [12"- 2 x 2"]/(144 in2/ft2) = 12′ x 1.778 ft2 = 21.333 ft3.

    The internal volumes will be re-examined later as a possible space to place the thermite.

    The website also mentions that the largest box columns used at the core bases had the dimensions of 16" wide x 36" deep x 4" thick. It is not known where exactly the molten steel, that puddled in the WTC basement, originated in the towers. The melt could have occurred some what higher in the columns (where "average" box columns would have been), or at the base where the "largest" box columns were. Molten material would flow down the various WTC shafts to the lowest point possible, 6 stories (some 72′) below ground level. Applying the same formulae as above, we have for these "largest" columns, A= [36" x 4" + (16" - 2 x 4") x 4"] x 2 = 352 in2 = 2.444 ft2. Note that this happens to be twice the area as for the "average" box column assumed above. Again, for a 12′ column, V = 12′ x 2.444 ft2 = 29.328 ft3. Also, here, the internal volume is Vint = 12′ x [36′ - 2 x 4"] x [16′ -2 x 4"]/144" = 18.667 ft3.

    In summary, we have for a 12 ft. high core box-column, for a

    12" wide x 36"deep x 2" wall thickness (hereafter referred to as an "average" box column), that it has 14.67 ft3 = 0.415 m3 volume of steel, and 21.33 ft3 = 0.604 m3 of internal volume; and

    16" wide x 36" deep x 4" wall thickness (hereafter referred to as a "largest" box column), that it has 29.328 ft3 = 0.832 m3 of steel and 18.667 ft3 = 0.529 m3 of internal volume.

    Sensible and Latent Heat Energies Needed for Melting a Core Column Section

    Knowing the volume of steel involved, we next turn our attention to calculating the energy needed to melt a core column section. We decided to use values for the element iron rather than steel for the following pragmatic reasons:

    steel is mostly iron (Fe);

    whatever steel is chosen, may be the wrong kind and would be contested: Fe is a given and known quan y, whereas there are many steels;

    Fe values found were readily available and reasonably self-consistent;

    except for stainless steels, the thermal properties of steel are relatively close to Fe, although the mechanical properties may certainly differ more.

    For Fe we will use the following values:

    Density = 7874 kg/m3
    Melting point = 1811 K = 1538 C
    Specific heat = 25.1J/mol K = 449 J/kg K = 0.449 kJ/kg K
    Latent heart of fusion = 13,800 J/mol = 2.47 x 10+5 J/kg
    Latent heat of evaporation = 347,000 J/mol = 6.21 x 10+3 kJ/kg
    mol = gm mole equivalent = 0.0558 kg for Fe

    For a 12 ft high core Fe column, we have

    for the "average" box column, 0.415 m3 x 7874 kg/m3 = 3267.71 kg Fe; and

    for the "largest" box column, 0.832 m3 x 7874 kg/m3 = 6551.17 kg Fe.

    Taking 300 K as "ambient" temperature on 9-11, then the temperature difference up to the melting point of Fe is given by

    1811 K - 300 K = 1511 K (give or take a few degrees K).

    Hence, the energy needed to raise a 12 ft high Fe column to its melting point temperature is given by

    for an "average" column, 3267.71 kg x 1511 K x 0.449 kJ/kg K = 2.22 x 10+6 kJ; and

    for a "largest" column, 6551.17 kg x 1511 K x 0.449 kJ/kg K = 4.44 x 10+6 kJ.

    To actually melt the Fe at 1511 K, we need to provide the latent heat of fusion:

    for "average" column, 3267.71 kg x 2.47 x 10+2 kJ/kg = 8.07 x 10+5 kJ; and

    for "largest" column, 6551.17 kg x 2.47 x 10+2 kJ/kg = 1.62 x 10+6 kJ.

    Thus we see that the sensible heat energies involved are almost a factor of 3 times larger than the latent heats.

    Hence, for the total amount of energy needed to melt a 12 ft high Fe column, we need:

    for "average" box column, (2.22 + 0.81) x 10+6 kJ = 3.03 x 10+6 kJ; and

    for "largest" box column, (4.44 + 1.62) x 10+6 kJ = 6.06 x 10+6kJ

    Energies of the Thermite Reaction

    An iron oxide/aluminum "thermite" mixture consists of 23.7% Al, 74.7% Fe2O3 by weight, in the reaction

    Fe2O3 + 2 Al => Al2O3 + 2 Fe + 849 kJ/mol.

    Thus, 849 kJ of energy are released for every g-mole-equivalent (mol) of Fe2O3 that reacts with 2 mol of Al.

    For Al, with a density of 2.699 g/cm3, there are 26.98 g/mol.

    For Fe2O3, with a density of 5.24 g/cm3, there are 159.70 g/mol.

    So then, 159.70 g of Fe2O3 + 53.96 g of Al (213.66 g total) produces 849 kJ of energy, or 3.974 kJ/g = 3.974 x 10+3 kJ/kg (Note that this gives the proper % component mixtures by weight).

    For an infinitesimally compacted powder mixture, this would occupy a volume of 159.70g x (cm3/5.24 g) + 53.96 g x (cm3/2.699 g) = (30.48 + 20.0) cm3 = 50.48 cm3.

    A separate analysis of a CuO/Al thermite mixture (used to weld copper parts) indicates a powder packing fraction of 0.82 (82%) can be achieved. Let’s assume a powder packing fraction of 0.82. Hence, our Fe2O3/Al thermite mixture would occupy not 50.48 cm3, but 61.5 cm3.

    Thus the physical density of our densely-packed Fe2O3/Al thermite mixture is

    213.66 g/61.5 cm3 = 3.474 g/cm3 = 3.474 x 10+6 g/m3 = 3.474 x 10+3 kg/m3,

    and our energy density (per volume) is given by

    849 kJ/61.5 cm3 = 13.805 kJ/cm3 = 1.3805 x 10+7 kJ/m3.

    Thus to melt a 12 ft high Fe column, we need

    for an "average" column, (3.03 x 10+6 kJ)/(3.974 x 10+3 kJ/kg) = 0.7625 x 10+3 kg = 762.5 kg of thermite. This would occupy a volume of 762.5 kg/(3.474 x 10+3 kg/m3) = 0.219 m3. Note that this volume of thermite is less than the internal volume Vint calculated earlier, 0.604 m3. Actually, the internal volume of the "average" box column could be filled with 0.604 m3/0.219 m3 = 2.76 times more than needed to do the job. Alternatively, the column does not require as high a packing density ( i.e. <0.82) and yet be able to load a sufficient charge of thermite mixture to cause melting

    for a "largest" column, (6.06 x10+6 kJ)/(3.974 x 10+3 kJ/kg) = 1524.9 kg thermite. This would occupy a volume of 1524.9 kg/(3.974 x 10+3 kg/m3) = 0.439 m3. Note that this volume of thermFite also is less than the earlier calculated Vint = 0.529, but would require a moderately high packing density, approximately > 0.82 x 0.439/0.529 = 0.68.

  17. #1067
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Steel Ignores Jet Fuel
    by Edward Mitc


    I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer. I am a Boilermaker, Shipbuilder, and Blacksmith Forger. Union. Now a contractor on military facilities. I build steel storage tanks for jet fuel. A few years ago, a typhoon blew through, and I got to watch a Mobil AST, with 1,000,000 gallons of diesel in it, get hit with lightning. The grounding failed, and the million gallons blew up.

    Well, for a diesel fire that is. It didn’t “blow up”. It simply caught fire, burned itself out after 4 days, blackened the steel. Catch that? One million gallons of diesel fuel, burned for 4 days, and didn’t melt a thing.

    The tank, 1/4″-thick steel, never melted.

    Yet the 47 HUGE box-section core columns, the main structural supports of the WTC towers, are said to have melted?

    Stop, I’ll wet my britches laughing.

    I’ve melted, welded, forged, bent, twisted, repaired, sheared, punched, formed, plated, blasted and coated just about every metal you see used commonly in industry and construction, for over 32 years. I’ve welded many a steel I-beam: purlin clips, joining plates, you name it.

    Do you recall the explosion you see after the second plane hits the tower? What caused that?

    It was the JP-8 [jet fuel] contained in the aircraft’s tanks.

    Did you see that huge fireball? What was that?

    It was the kerosene (JP-8 is nothing more than refined kerosene, the same stuff you use in your camping stove).

    It burned OUTSIDE the towers!

    How could this fuel then have recons uted itself after exploding, and put itself back inside the building?

    And then?

    It ran down 90 floors to melt the “un-insulated I-beams”? What? “Shook” the insulation off by jet impact? Are you kidding me? When the jet hit, it did not even knock folks down in the building below it! What nonsense!

    Because I KNOW the dimensions of a 14,000 gallon fuel tank. It’s about 11’x11’x11’ — About the size on one of the many small offices on the floor that got hit. That’s all. The size of one little office the size of a 11-foot-cube.

    Let’s look at this another way: The volume of each of the towers was roughly 50 MILLION CUBIC FEET.

    The volume of the fuel was a relatively insignificant 1,300 cubic feet, about 0.003 percent!

    Yet, you would have me believe NOT my own eyes, that see an explosion of huge proportions caused by the impact of the jet plane, but rather a tale that says exploded fuel turned back into liquid form, and less than 14,000 gallons, a ridiculously small amount of fuel, ran 90 stories down the stairways (the stairwells the firefighters used to come up to see “small fires”) and caused the beams to melt because the impact “knocked off the insulation”.

    I have only one reply to that: What about WTC 7. Not hit. there goes THAT THEORY.
    Physics911

  18. #1068
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Was the tell-tale signs of termite found on steel from WTC towers?



    The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.
    A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

    FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion." Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.
    Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
    ...
    The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
    ...
    The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
    ...
    liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
    911 Research

  19. #1069
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,407
    So the first guy was arguing against the already abandoned pancaking theory and the second guy was arguing against the never adopted melting steel theory.

    As for the third issue, of you actually look at the scientific sites linked in those twoofer pages -- you find no mention of thermite or other explosives whatsoever. In fact, the culprit they cite as possibly providing the sulfur needed to cause the reaction that weakened the steel in WTC 7 is....




    ....wait for it.....




    ....pollution.

    A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity.

    "The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain."

    Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says.


    From a building-safety point of view, the critical question is: Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson. "To answer that, we would need to recreate those fires in the FPE labs, and burn fresh steel of known composition for the right time period, with the right environment." He hopes to have the opportunity to collaborate on thermodynamically controlled studies, and to observe the effects of adding sulfur, copper and other elements. The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity.
    http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformati...ing/steel.html

    Thanks for bringing that last twoofer link up, Dan -- it pretty much explains the fall of WTC 7 to my complete satisfaction. No bombs, no thermite, no false flag operation, no nothing.

    Acid rain, sea salt, rubber and plastic.

    This case is beyond closed.


  20. #1070
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    So the first guy was arguing against the already abandoned pancaking theory and the second guy was arguing against the never adopted melting steel theory.
    If there was no pancaking then compressed air couldn't have caused the windows to blow out in the areas immediately below the building already collapsing...you can't have it both ways, either the floors pancaked or they didn't, and like you said, if NISA has already acknowledged that most of the concrete was pulverized, then what is causing the squib lines in the building?

  21. #1071
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity.
    What the does 'compromise' mean? I guess it's open to interpretation....

  22. #1072
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,407
    Why would there be squibs going off in non-critical areas of a building that was already in total collapse?

  23. #1073
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,407
    What the does 'compromise' mean? I guess it's open to interpretation....
    You really don't know what the phrase "compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity" means?

  24. #1074
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    The steel on a single floor of the twin towers weighed ten times as much as a 767....as I've always said in our past discussions, something had to weaken the inner column cores in order for the buildings to have fallen at ~10 sec...

  25. #1075
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity
    How hot were the fires (a range)? and what percent of steel strength is lost at those temp ranges?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •