CNN Charlie Sheen poll result

[WouldBe]

I trust the people who designed the building in the first place

And for the second time there was a documentary which talked to the architect who explained how the buildings fell due to the fire and impact.

But that trustable 'mouthpiece' isn't saying what you want to hear so you chose to ignore and / or twist his words to fit your theory.

 

[In Bloom]

It's full of contradictions as well.

It starts off stating that the fire caused deformation of the steel structure then further down claims the fire wasn't hot enough to do this.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

I didn't see that anywhere

 

[editor]

I`m not bothered what the mouthpieces say. I trust the people who designed the building in the first place over a bunch of sycophants who prefer cheques to the truth.

So all the experts in all those agencies are all in on it too, yes?

Still looking forward to your sources, btw. Have you found them yet?


PS I don't read anything posted on prisonplanet. It's a site for gullible morons.

 

[Bonfirelight]

I trust the people who designed the building in the first place over a bunch of sycophants who prefer cheques to the truth. .

if you have any testimony by Minoru Yamasaki, Emery Roth and Sons consulting or John Skilling / Leslie Robertson i'd be interested to see it

 

[editor]

This appears to say: "The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse".

Priceless stuff, innit?

 

[Azrael23]

PS I don't read anything posted on prisonplanet. It's a site for gullible morons.

Well all PP.COM is, is lots of links to newspaper articles and radio interviews. Please carry on displaying your ignorance.

You`ve yet to answer my questions.

Why did the commission tell us that WTC 7`s massive support columns didn`t exist?
What is your response to the owner of WTC7 admitting they used demo charges to bring it down? Why did they lie about this at the commission, they say it was brought down by fire on 3 floors.

Two very simple questions.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

One simple question: why are you supporting a claim that the collapse was not caused by fire with a link which says it was?

 

[Azrael23]

One simple question: why are you supporting a claim that the collapse was not caused by fire with a link which says it was?

I C&P`d the wrong link. The link was going to be part of a critique of editors claims but I`m still trying to find that source I promised so I didn`t bother in the end.

 

[WouldBe]

I didn't see that anywhere

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame......This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range......However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range....It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

Quoted bit starts along side the pic of the central support columns.

 

[editor]

Well all PP.COM is, is lots of links to newspaper articles and radio interviews. Please carry on displaying your ignorance. .

Still waiting for the sources to your unequivocal claim....

If you just made it up, why not save us both some time and just admit it?

 

[Bonfirelight]

I trust the people who designed the building in the first place over a bunch of sycophants who prefer cheques to the truth. .

if you have any testimony by Minoru Yamasaki, Emery Roth and Sons consulting or John Skilling / Leslie Robertson i'd be interested to see it

sorry, but i'm off home in a bit. Do you have anything from the people who designed the building?

 

[Azrael23]

There have been over 100 fires in Skyscrapers over the past 50 years. Some have burnt for weeks....WEEKS.

Steel doesn`t begin to weaken til 2000 degrees, you need a temperature of 3000 degrees to melt steel.
The Madrid Tower held out long enough and burned long enough to spawn white flames.

FIRE DOES NOT MELT STEEL, FIRES DO NOT MAKE SKYCRAPERS COLLAPSE ON THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT. The only things that can make a large building fall are earthquakes and demos. The only thing that makes a skyscraper fall on its own footprint...is controlled demo. Its quite simple

BTW the designer who came out and said the WTC couldn`t have fell from fire was the original head of design, Minuru Yamasaki. He went on record and said the towers were designed to take multiple jumbojet strikes and the collapse wasn`t architecturally feasible.

 

[In Bloom]

Quoted bit starts along side the pic of the central support columns.

I read it as saying that the strength of the steel would be halved by softening from the heat and further reduced by buckling due to uneven temperature, which, taken together is adequate to explain the collapse.

 

[editor]

Note: if this thread is going to end up like all previous 9/11 threads with conspiraloons making the same barking claims which they are unable to support with credible sources, it's going straight in the bin.

To repeat the mods policy about 9/11 threads: threads which merely regurgitate the same evidence-free 9/11 tosh from conspiracy sites while offer no substantive, credible new information or research will be binned.

 

[Azrael23]

Note: if this thread is going to end up like all previous 9/11 threads with conspiraloons making the same barking claims which they are unable to support with credible sources, it's going straight in the bin.

To repeat the mods policy about 9/11 threads: threads which merely regurgitate the same evidence-free 9/11 tosh from conspiracy sites while offer no substantive, credible new information or research will be binned.

Your such a coward.

 

[In Bloom]

There have been over 100 fires in Skyscrapers over the past 50 years. Some have burnt for weeks....WEEKS.

How many of them were hit by fully fuelled, fully loaded passenger aircraft?

Steel doesn`t begin to weaken til 2000 degrees, you need a temperature of 3000 degrees to melt steel.

The article you posted from a peer reviewed journal states otherwise:

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.

 

[editor]

T
Steel doesn`t begin to weaken til 2000 degrees, you need a temperature of 3000 degrees to melt steel.
The Madrid Tower held out long enough and burned long enough to spawn white flames.

Call me crazy if you like, but given the choice of hearing your evidence-free, source-untroubled rantings against peer-reviewed studies by independent structural engineers, architects and building experts, I know which I'll go along with.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

If you're just going to repeat your fact-free mantra without offering a single shred of credible evidence or a reliable source, it's bin time again,

 

[WouldBe]

I read it as saying that the strength of the steel would be halved by softening from the heat and further reduced by buckling due to uneven temperature, which, taken together is adequate to explain the collapse.

That's what I understood from the bit you quoted. The bit in bold I quoted suggests to me that the buidling had enough redundance to not buckle under 650C heat which is in contradiction with the rest of the article.

 

[Azrael23]

How many of them were hit by fully fuelled, fully loaded passenger aircraft?


The article you posted from a peer reviewed journal states otherwise:

Yeah exactly....ITS LYING. That was going to be my point. But as i`ve explained twice now I posted the wrong link. Can you please listen to what i`m saying rather than picking at what I say like some intellectual vulture.

 

[Bonfirelight]

to clarify your point Azrael, Steel melts around 2300 degrees farenheit which is around 1300 degrees c

i presume there is to be nothing from the buildings designers.

 

[Azrael23]

Dept of Energy

Steel is a form of iron. Steel melts at about 1300 degrees Celsius
(2400 Fahrenheit). It's boiling point is about 3000 C (or 5400 F).
To generate that much heat would be astounding! Even when you get to
the boiling point, you would have to keep adding energy to vaporize
the steel. I haven't been able to come across a value for the amount
of heat needed for this either (called "delta H of vaporization"), but my
guess would be that it is very high since the vapor pressure of molten
steel is probably very low.


BTW The reason you see differences in figures on melting points is because of the variety of alloys used.

 

[editor]

Your such a coward.

Right. That's it.

Produce this source that backs up your claim that the "Fire Service Engineers and the Structural Engineers/Architects who built the towers both agree that fire did not bring those buildings down" or you're out of here.

If your next post fails to have that information, clearly presented from a credible source you'll be history.

I'm not having some fucking delusional fruitloop calling me a coward.

 

[In Bloom]

That's what I understood from the bit you quoted. The bit in bold I quoted suggests to me that the buidling had enough redundance to not buckle under 650C heat which is in contradiction with the rest of the article.

The 650 centigrade alone would not be enough, but it did soften the steel to a significant degree, which coupled with distortion from uneven temperature caused the collapse.

 

[WouldBe]

It's boiling point is about 3000 C (or 5400 F).
To generate that much heat would be astounding! Even when you get to
the boiling point, you would have to keep adding energy to vaporize
the steel.

What on earth does that have to do with anything?

 

[Azrael23]

Right. That's it.

Produce this source that backs up your claim that the "Fire Service Engineers and the Structural Engineers/Architects who built the towers both agree that fire did not bring those buildings down" or you're out of here.

If your next post fails to have that information, clearly presented from a credible source you'll be history.

I`m looking through the tapes now. Not that I OWE you that, I don`t mind doing things for people who listen and who actually have some decorum but if your going to be rude!

BTW did you answer my two simple questions?

 

[In Bloom]

Yeah exactly....ITS LYING.

Perhaps you'd care to back that up.

What specific parts of the article are lies? What sources can you provide to prove this? How did these glaring lies, so obvious that a person with absolutely no background in structural engineering whatosever could see them, get past the peer review board and the thousands of colleagues worldwide who would have read this article?

 

[Azrael23]

What on earth does that have to do with anything?

Because not only would you need a STUPIDLY hot fire (beyond white heat to the point of plasma!) but the constant addition of fuel at a rate greater than the rate at which the fuel is being burnt. Thats to melt the steel.

Even to weaken it, would take temperatures far in excess of what we witnessed.

Even if there were some fluke anomaly in a support beam somewhere, it would take days of burning before any kind of floors collapse, the idea that the whole building can fall perfectly after a few hours is ridiculous.

 

[editor]

I`m looking through the tapes now. Not that I OWE you that, I don`t mind doing things for people who listen and who actually have some decorum but if your going to be rude!

Perhaps you misheard me so I'll give you one last chance.

If your next post fails to support your claim with relevant, clearly presented material from a credible source you'll be history.

As for being 'rude', I think you'll find you just called me a 'coward.'

So, to recap: your next post MUST contain this source or you're gone.

I suggest you now shut the fuck up until you are able to present this source.

 

[WouldBe]

Because not only would you need a STUPIDLY hot fire (beyond white heat to the point of plasma!) but the constant addition of fuel at a rate greater than the rate at which the fuel is being burnt. Thats to melt the steel.

Except you don't need to melt the steel. Blacksmiths do not need to melt steel to be able to shape it.

 

[Bonfirelight]

Because not only would you need a STUPIDLY hot fire (beyond white heat to the point of plasma!) but the constant addition of fuel at a rate greater than the rate at which the fuel is being burnt. Thats to melt the steel.

Even to weaken it, would take temperatures far in excess of what we witnessed.

Even if there were some fluke anomaly in a support beam somewhere, it would take days of burning before any kind of floors collapse, the idea that the whole building can fall perfectly after a few hours is ridiculous.

you're confusing melting points and boiling points surely?
no-one (surely) is saying the steel boiled?