9/11 media happenings

[wee cough ed]

Jazzz

Was there a previous attack on WTC ?

What happened ?

 

[TheArchitect]

You're making a big deal about the 600% again! I figure I happily managed to discard and prove the point without it. I guess you're still smarting because lil'ol me managed to understand the DCR ratios far better than you did, and you're the one that professed to know it all.

Don't make me laugh. You're the one who got DCR wrong AND who thinks you can use tensile strength for gravity loads.

Do you think the family steering group - who are beside themselves that the USG - who owes explanations to them of how their loved ones died - think that it's all a 'big game'? Jesus. It may be a game to you - that's how you perceive these threads for sure. 'keeps the mind sharp' didn't you say.

Sharper than you; I do seem to recall a challenge to tell us how many families objected to the NIST report, the nature of their complaints, and so on. And yet I don't see a pertinent reply.

I'm on their side. You are not. Don't act like you are the one to feel righteous indignation. Once people like you start taking things seriously then the sooner the families will be able to get the answers and maybe the justice they deserve.

I'm on the side of the truth, which can only be determined through an analysis of facts and evidence. You, on the other hand, refuse to provide any such substantiation and have stated many times that your position is based on "belief".

Clearly you are not, in fact, interested in the truth - only youre own prejudicies.

I mean, missiles for heaven's sake?!?! You can't make that kind of claim without some good evidence and expect to be taken seriously.

 

[Jazzz]

So you're admiting it's BS.

No.

Please give examples of the USAF successfully intercepting aircraft, in the time frame between the hijacking and the crashes.

From David Ray Griffin

According to standard operating procedures, if a FAA flight controller agent notices anything that suggests a possible hijacking, the controller has to contact a superior. If the problem cannot be fixed quickly within about a minute, the superior has to ask NORAD (The North American Aerospace Defense Command), whether to scramble jet fighters to figure out what’s going on.

NORAD then issues a scramble order to the nearest air force base with fighters on alert; the jet fighters at NORAD’s disposal could respond very quickly. According to the U.S air force website, F15s can go from scramble order to 2000 feet in only two and a half minutes; after which they can fly over 1800 miles an hour.

Therefore, according to General Ralph Eberhart, the head of NORAD, after the FAA senses that something is wrong “it takes about a minute” for it to contact NORAD after which according to a spokesperson, NORAD can scramble fighter jets “within a matter of minutes to anywhere in the United States.”

An air force travel control document put out in 1998, warning pilots that “any airplane persisting in unusual behaviour will likely find two [jetfighters] on their tail within 10 or so minutes.”

If these procedures had been carried out on the morning of 9/11, American airlines flight 11 and United airline flight 175, would have been intercepted before they could reach Manhattan; and the American flight 77 would have been intercepted long before it could reach the Pentagon. Such interceptions are routine being carried out about a hundred times a year; a month after 9/11 the Calgary Herald reported that “in the year 2000, NORAD had scrambled fighters 129 times.”

Do these scrambles often result in interceptions? Just a few days after 9/11, Major Mike Snyder, the NORAD spokesperson told the Boston Globe that “[Norad] fighters routinely intercept aircraft.”

Why did not such interceptions occur on 9/11?

You know the WTC was clad in aluminium right? No thought not.

okay. But it matters little. We know it was like 'a foundry' with vast amounts of heat persisting for at least six weeks. Thermal imaging showed temperatures of over 700 deg C. on the surface! NIST simply looks the other way and John Gross was making out he knew nothing about it! That molten steel was present would appear confirmed by this quote:

"In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel" Greg Fuchek

Plenty more about that on page 5 of the pdf of Jones' paper

 

[TheArchitect]

Are Jones and Griffin your only sources for that information, Jazz?

 

[wee cough ed]

Architect

OK I will ask you (because I do not know the answer) since Jazz has not answered.

What could have been the structural effect of the earlier attack ?

I think it is known that the emergency generator system failed in the aftermath to the first attack (representing a common feature to both attacks)

But I am asking whether the structure could have been compromised ?

 

[wee cough ed]

I have to work in the morning .. self employed no sickies. Good night all.

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz - Debunked Again

Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.

The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"

First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.

I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F [To convert to C use this link]

Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.

Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?

The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8

Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.

Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.

The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.

THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.

Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.

I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

and...

 

[TheArchitect]

And

Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten metal found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. There is another explanation which is more plausible.

Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!

The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.

I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!

In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace.

In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2.

I am sure there was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" I am referring to.

Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.

The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots.

The demolitionists much beloved thermite is a good example, BUT NOT THE ONLY EXAMPLE. AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THERMITE, THERMATE, SOL-GEL NANO-THERMITE WAS EVER PRESENT AT THE WTC SITE!!!!!!

It is irrelevant whether or not the steam was wet or dry, that is a chemical engineering notion only of interest in a closed and controlled system, usually under high-pressure, such as a steam generator in a power station.

Water vapor was present in the rubble pile and water vapor reacts with iron releasing HYDROGEN.

ITS CALLED A CORROSION REACTION:

METAL + WATER = METAL OXIDE + HYDROGEN

More on this iron-H2O reaction:

Modern Commercial Hydrogen generation:

"steam contacts molten iron to form iron oxide and release hydrogen....
The hydrogen production step is the same chemical reaction that occurs in the steam-iron process which was used to produce hydrogen commercially 100 years ago. In that technology steam was passed over iron particles to produce hydrogen and iron oxide. However, the rate of hydrogen production declined as the iron oxidized and was covered with rust and the cost of replenishing iron ultimately rendered this process uneconomical"
http://www.alchemix.net/index.php?module=C...n&mid=10&ceid=2 or http://www.alchemix.us/TechnologyDescriptionweb710.pdf


Hydrogen generation from "steam" and iron Performed as a school-lab experiment without "molten" iron:
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:pdpu-...us&ct=clnk&cd=8

Patent involving the process, without "molten" iron:
"The generation of hydrogen by passing steam at or about 700.degree. C. over a bed of iron is well known in the art."
"a hydrogen-generating process wherein H.sub.2 O is passed over a bed of iron material. The hydrogen generating process uses a catalyst, or freshly-ground iron material, or both, and generates the hydrogen for the fuel cell in situ at lower-than-normal temperatures when the H.sub.2 O reacts with the iron material." http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6093501.html

In a vehicle application, the hydrogen is generated by passing water or low-temperature steam over desirably freshly-ground iron, which then becomes iron oxide."

"The instantaneous grinding of the iron particles in situ is necessitated because iron becomes rapidly oxidized after grinding."
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6093501.html

Also: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.js...&isnumber=29811

Evidently, iron will oxidize about the same rate in air, or in a steam-atmosphere. The addition of water to the piles from the top or pools of it at the bottom thus may have served as an additional source of oxygen, upon combining with hot steel or aluminum.

The hydrogen generated may have then combined with other materials in the piles, or with oxygen in air, to produce additional heat. (Net thermal result would be same as directly oxidizing iron with oxygen).

 

[TheArchitect]

Abbreviations: gigaJoules (gJ) = 1,000 megaJoules (MJ). To heat steel to the melting point requires about 0.68 gJ of heat to be added for each tonne (metric ton) of steel. Enough more heat has to be added to melt it. Total is about 1 gJ/tonne. All we require is enough heat to obtain yellow hot steel, approximately 0.6 gJ/tonne. However, for simplicity and to allow for losses, assume 1 gJ/tonne of yellow hot steel in the basement(s) of WTC 1 & 2(?).

This could easily be supplied by a pressure pulse down the box columns as each floor is stripped off.
Again, for simplicity of analysis, assume 100 floors each supplied the same sized pulse of energy down the box column. Then each floor supplied 10 MJ. Calculations shows that this amount of energy, distributed over the horizontal area of the box columns, only provides a small fraction of the pressure required to cause structural steel to yield. So ignoring the top 10 floors to allow a further 10% loss in energy transfer, all that is required to obtain yellow hot steel in the basements is the modest contribution of 10 MJ per floor per tonne of yellow hot steel.

Pressure calculations: Above I determined that each floor needed to deliver 10 MJ of energy down the box column to the bottom in order to supply more than sufficient heat to cause a tonne of steel to become yellow hot. Here we need to assure ourselves that this energy delivery does not stress the box column into yielding. Now just yielding is not failure, but might be noticed in a post-collapse inspection of box columns. From wikipedia, structural steel has a yield strength of 400 MPa and an ultimate strength of 650 MPa.

Reminders: Pascal = Newton/m^2, Joule = Newton-meter (N.m). The meters-squared, m^2, will refer to the cross-sectional area of the box column. The meters in the Joule part will refer to the vertical height of the pressure pulse traveling down the box column. The speed of sound in steel is 5100--5960 m/s, depending upon the source one uses. For simplicity in the following I will assume that the speed of the pressure pulse is just the rounded-off 5000 m/s.

Since we are attempting to find the highest possible reasonable figure for the pressure delivered to the box column by the pressure pulse, assume that the pressure pulse lasts only for 0.001 s = 1 millisecond. Then this square wave of pressure extends vertically for 5 meters. Thus the force over these 5 meters is 2 MN, 10 MJ = 2 MN x 5 m. So the force applied to the cross-sectional area of the box column is 2 megaNewtons.

Now assume that this force is applied equally across the cross-sectional area of the box column. (We will return to this assumption. It certainly applies to all parts of the pressure pulse traveling down the box column except at the moment of initiation.) Now assume the box column is a square 1 meter on a side and is 3" = .0762 m thick. Thus the steel cross-sectional area is 4 x 0.0762 = 0.3048 m^2.

We have now determined that the pressure on the box columns due to the pressure pulse traveling down it is 6.56 MPa = 2 MN/0.3048 m^2. This is trivial compared to the 400 MPa yield strength of the structural steel. No yielding will be observed, and indeed, none was in the majority of the structural steel. The exceptions are in the basement, where stresses and temperatures were high. The 400 MPa figure applies to ordinary temperatures, not elevated ones.

At the moment of the initiation of the pressure pulse due to floors stripping off, the initial forces will all be on just the outside edges of the most exterior of the box columns in the core. But as the calculation shows, the pressure required is less than 1/40th of the yield strength. So the box columns would not show signs of yielding, even with highly asymmetric patterns of the initial forces.

"Roaring oven" Ok, it was indeed hot in the rubble piles of WTC 1 & 2. More important, there were definite hot spots which were the hottest. We have seen ample evidence of potential fuels, including ordinary office materials, gasoline in the automobiles in the basement(?) and transformer oil. However, heat always flows from higher temperatures to lower ones. So to obtain yellow hot steel requires not only sufficient energy, but if heated from the exterior, high temperatures. If the energy was supplied by pressure pulses, as suggested, then simply the friction of repeated slamming the bottom of a box column into unyielding concrete or granite suffices.

Further, perhaps the estimated temperature of the hot spots, obtained via infrared scanning, was 1500 F = (810+273)K = 1083K. Assuming approximately black body radiation. 1000K is red hot, maybe 1500K is orange hot. Yellow hot, then is very close to the melting temperature of iron, (1535+273)K = 1808K. It seems to me a higher temperature than can be reached by burning ordinary office materials. That gasoline was in close proximity seems unlikely. I don't know the temperature of burning transformer oil, but I suppose it is less than gasoline(?) The point behind this addendum is that the pressure pulse hypothesis is highly robust under alternative scenarios and is not dependent on an external source of chemical energy.

or

Australia is the home of one of the world's few naturally burning coal seams...
The fire temperature reaches temperatures of 1,700°C deep beneath the ground.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_786127.htm

 

[TheArchitect]

Apologies to everyone else; I just wanted to demonstrate to Jazz how insane his arguments were and bearing in mind his reading comprehension problems went for an overkill solution.

 

[editor]

TheArchitect: please edit your posts to include a précis of the content and a link to the original page (not that Jazzz will read it anyway).

Great reams of cut and paste are not allowed here. Thanks.

 

[Crispy]

I don't know if cut'n'pastes get read any more often than linked articles, tbh.

 

[TheArchitect]

Yea, I know, and I hate folk that normally cut and paste huge reams - usually the fans of the chief woowoos like Jones. But the point I was trying to make to Jazz and his fellow CTers was just how complex these issues were, and how claiming "common sense" or "intuitive understanding" was bollocks.

But I suspect you're right - they'll never read the damned thing anyway. Just like they never read the NIST report or the Arup study of the Edinburgh University research.

To be honest I suspect that most of them had the same trouble getting through the higher education system.

 

[pk]

Would missiles or "squib" charges actually melt steel... even if normal sane people that don't take regular medicines for treating chronic fatigue syndrome were to suspend belief long enough to believe the molten metal is steel - and not aluminium...

What could have really melted steel in the basement of the WTC??

Is it those pesky ray guns fired by the thetans from outer space again??

Because I can see no theory even in the depths of conspiranoid lunacy that could explain the kind of temperatures required to melt steel.

Aluminium, yes.

Steel no.

Still, I'm sure a crusty .wmv file would be enough visual proof to tell the difference.

And for the record I have no problem with the Architect posting cut and pastes of science fact, maybe the paranoid memory-loss suffering theorists might learn something that isn't invented by anti-semites.

 

[Jazzz]

Yea, I know, and I hate folk that normally cut and paste huge reams - usually the fans of the chief woowoos like Jones. But the point I was trying to make to Jazz and his fellow CTers was just how complex these issues were, and how claiming "common sense" or "intuitive understanding" was bollocks.

Add yourself to the list mate. You're the worst offender I've come across.

 

[Jazzz]

Chastelain

... Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

In other words, he's assuming the premise of gravitational collapse in order to reach his conclusion which seems highly speculative to say the least. Now, who gets told off for doing that?

Let's rephrase his argument: if the metal is molten steel, then it cannot be a gravitational collapse.

 

[pk]

Mmmmm... it's More Jizzz!

 

[Wookey]

I think I can safely say that every word on this thread, including the ones I'm typing now, is in it's own way contributory to the dire state of directionless inertia and misprioritisation that engenders modern life.

 

[editor]

Jazzz: what was "curious" and "remarkable" about the make up of the passenger list please and what point are you trying to infer from it, please?

You brought up the subject, not me, so why are you so scared to have a discussion about it?



Oh, and pk: stop pissing about with usernames please.

 

[Jazzz]

Originally Posted by Mark Ferran
Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten metal found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. There is another explanation which is more plausible.

So, on one hand, an 'absurd amount' of explosives are needed to bring down a building - but on the other it just swans down thanks to damage to a few beams and a bit of fire?

Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!

The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.

I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. ...

ITS CALLED A CORROSION REACTION:

METAL + WATER = METAL OXIDE + HYDROGEN

"The instantaneous grinding of the iron particles in situ is necessitated because iron becomes rapidly oxidized after grinding."
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6093501.html

Right, he's saying that all that heat came from the steel rusting!

There's two big problems here that I can see. The major one is that as iron rusts, it forms a layer of rust, and that prevents further reaction. That's why the above quote refers to the 'instaneous grinding of particles in situ' being necessary - I have to say I love your capacity to quote things which disprove your own argument TA!

I think that's good enough to completely dismiss this one (and indeed the author suggests this reaction could take place 'for a while', possibly cognisant of this problem. It's made worse of course in that we are dealing with steel and not iron.

 

[pk]

 

[Jazzz]

Oh, and pk: stop pissing about with usernames please.

Could you edit the offending posts please? I have no idea why you let pk get away with pissing around like this. I haven't even bothered reporting his incredible offensive attacks on my Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

 

[editor]

Could you edit the offending posts please? I have no idea why you let pk get away with pissing around like this. I haven't even bothered reporting his incredible offensive attacks on my Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

Just as soon as you answered my questions because I'm a little busy.

pk: stop or be banned. You're only giving Jazzz a fresh excuse to avoid answering the topics he brought up himself.

 

[Jazzz]

In fact, seeing as you've already warned him, and he's just taken the piss further that means a ban is called for. Ban him now!

 

[editor]

In fact, seeing as you've already warned him, and he's just taken the piss further that means a ban is called for. Ban him now!

I've also warned you about your disruptive conduct in this thread and that doesn't seem to be improving either.

 

[Jazzz]

I've also warned you about your disruptive conduct in this thread and that doesn't seem to be improving either.

'Disrupting' the thread? It's me vs. everyone else. How can I disrupt my own debates?

You can't ban me for not answering questions to your personal satisfaction, else you'd have to scrap the ignore function.

You should ban pk though. he's done nothing but pile on personal abuse after personal abuse. He does this until you warn him. Then he does it again. Then after he's given a final warning he goes quiet for a while, until a page of thread later when he starts the cycle all over again. You let him take the piss, and it's a sorry sight for these boards.

 

[editor]

'Disrupting' the thread? It's me vs. everyone else. How can I disrupt my own debates?.

You bring up topics, make claims and then refuse to back them up when politely - and repeatedly - asked, to the utter frustration of everyone else.

I'd say that's mightily disruptive. Or maybe it's just trolling.

So why won't you answer my questions seeing as they were raised in direct response to your comments?

 

[Jazzz]

You bring up topics, make claims and then refuse to back them up when politely - and repeatedly - asked, to the utter frustration of everyone else.

I'd say that's mightily disruptive. Or maybe it's just trolling.

So why won't you answer my questions seeing as they were raised in direct response to your comments?

You have a strong involvement in this thread. That clearly affects your judgment where moderating is concerned. If some other poster reported posts saying 'so and so has me on ignore and won't answer my questions, ban him please' you would tell him to stop moaning, and rightly so. As it is, I have many posters to deal with. I was midway through dealing with TA's salvo. The problem I have with you is that your questions go on for ever. No matter how much I answer them you always come up with more and claim I haven't answered any. So there has to be a point where I don't answer them, you'll yelp around for sure but that's they way it is.

 

[pk]

Sorry but anyone propagating the clearly false lies about the holocaust deserves all the abuse they get.



And I genuinely believe that the chronic fatigue syndrome is a key factor in these delusions of missiles and holograms.

That's my belief. Why are you persecuting me for my beliefs??

 

[TheArchitect]

So, on one hand, an 'absurd amount' of explosives are needed to bring down a building - but on the other it just swans down thanks to damage to a few beams and a bit of fire?

[LOL]

Oh, you're serious.

Damage to a few beams: An aircraft crashed into the building, causing significant damage to the outer envelope and severing in a region of a third of the loadbearing columns in the core.

A bit of fire: Heavy, dispersed fired extending across almost the entire floor plate on 3-4 storeys, spreading upwards and with temperatures sufficient to cause the deformation and weakening of the steelwork.


Aye Jazz, you really have a grasp of the issues here - eh?




600% No fire! Free Fall Speed! Fire Engineering! (and other lies you've used).