Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
You're correct. However, it burns far hot enough to affect steel's structural integrity. You don't need steel to melt before a building collapses.
That's so inconclusive it's not even funny. The WTC was not constructing out of half inch solid steel rod. We also don't know how long that metal rod was in the furnace or even what that metal rod is made of.
Jet fuel does burn hot enough to melt steel. Sorry, WTLL. You're wrong again.
Are you talking to me? ... you old fool!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
.....the intense heat from ignited jet fuel in the stairwells could weaken the inner structural support of the buildings and cause them to collapse in on themselves."
I've been inside a freshly burned structure in which metal had run down the walls in riverlets from intense heat. In your exuberance to appear "correct" you have actually made a fool of yourself .... yet again!!! (Do any gas welding?....Stick the head of the torch in the POOL OF MOLTEN METAL and see what happens!)
When a fire is being constantly fueled in a contained environment, as a stairwell, the heat increases (try cooking a turkey with the oven door open!) within the closed area and builds.
(Let me guess ... you either didn't take chemistry and physics or failed it.)
See you around ... you ole fool!
... Ask your friend the chickenshit U.S. Senator who quit instead of fighting corruption.
That's so inconclusive it's not even funny. The WTC was not constructing out of half inch solid steel rod. We also don't know how long that metal rod was in the furnace or even what that metal rod was even made off.
Jim
You are right that it doesn't conclusively prove that jet fuel caused the structural collapse of the building.
However, it does prove one thing very conclusively. You can clearly see that the steel is not melting and that it has still lost virtually all of its structural integrity. So, clearly, it does not need to reach the melting point temperature.
So if you ever hear yourself uttering the phrase "but jet fuel can't melt steel beams!" when it comes to a reason to believe there is no way the plane could have taken the building down by itself, you are just ignoring the fact that you don't have to melt the steel to have it lose its effectiveness.
FTR, the NIST believes that there were some fires around 1800F, which wouldn't be enough to melt the beams. But that would be high enough to get it to about 10% integrity. The main reason they believe the heat caused the collapse is not simply because it go so hot, but that it got so unevenly hot which caused other distortions in the steal across those temperature gradients, which contributed to the collapse.
But, the best part about science is that you can go out and disprove this yourself! If you think the guy is lying about the temperature, or the fact that the second thing was steel, you can go out and run the test yourself and disprove it.
All this fantasizing about a government "conspiracy" to bring down the WTC is "interesting," not so much for the subject matter, but for consideration of the mindset that dwells on such events as being orchestrated to manipulate the U.S. public .... read all about the "conspiracy" tossed around regarding FDR and Pearl Harbor.
There will now have to be another thread discussing the alleged "conspiracy" of the government to bring down the WTC in the first attempt in 1993 in the early days of the Clinton administration. Now, that "conspiracy" would be relevant to the current election!
Or does someone think Bush orchestrated that one as well .... ?
I have it on good authority that the ancient aliens did not like the height of the towers and took them down with their death ray and they hit 7 just because they could. This is what the government really does not want you to know. That and the fact they were warned about it before hand.
All this fantasizing about a government "conspiracy" to bring down the WTC is "interesting," not so much for the subject matter, but for consideration of the mindset that dwells on such events as being orchestrated to manipulate the U.S. public .... read all about the "conspiracy" tossed around regarding FDR and Pearl Harbor.
There will now have to be another thread discussing the alleged "conspiracy" of the government to bring down the WTC in the first attempt in 1993 in the early days of the Clinton administration. Now, that "conspiracy" would be relevant to the current election!
Or does someone think Bush orchestrated that one as well .... ?
How many of you 911 Conspiracy Junkies think the landing on the moon was staged?
You really are fulfilling the role left open on the departure of WPF. Who brought up the moon landing? Keep making stuff up, WTLL. You've really become an idiot.
They found molten metal at ground zero. Jet fuel will not melt steel. NIST did not address the melted steel. Even if the fire was hot enough to affect the integrity of the steel, it would not have affected the beams evenly, and on the lower floors which would have allowed the buildings to free fall into their own footprint.
Other steel framed buildings have had much larger and more intense fires which burned for longer periods, and remained standing. At no time in history has a steel framed skyscraper collapsed into its own footprint without a controlled implosion.
Listen to the experts. Demand an independent investigation.
You are right that it doesn't conclusively prove that jet fuel caused the structural collapse of the building.
However, it does prove one thing very conclusively. You can clearly see that the steel is not melting and that it has still lost virtually all of its structural integrity. So, clearly, it does not need to reach the melting point temperature.
So if you ever hear yourself uttering the phrase "but jet fuel can't melt steel beams!" when it comes to a reason to believe there is no way the plane could have taken the building down by itself, you are just ignoring the fact that you don't have to melt the steel to have it lose its effectiveness.
FTR, the NIST believes that there were some fires around 1800F, which wouldn't be enough to melt the beams. But that would be high enough to get it to about 10% integrity. The main reason they believe the heat caused the collapse is not simply because it go so hot, but that it got so unevenly hot which caused other distortions in the steal across those temperature gradients, which contributed to the collapse.
But, the best part about science is that you can go out and disprove this yourself! If you think the guy is lying about the temperature, or the fact that the second thing was steel, you can go out and run the test yourself and disprove it.
The only thing that guy proved was the heat source he used was able to heat the metal rod he used to the point of failure. The whole argument with the collapse of the WTC buildings isn't just the temperature of the fire and the fact that intense temperature from fire can melt or weaken steel but rather the uniformity of the collapse of the metal structure from within. Not every square inch of the WTC was in constant contact with fire and not every steel beam reached the required temperature to cause it to fail regardless of what the temperature of the fire was, Incidentally the footage shows lots of black smoke with flames of red and orange that's not indicative of a hot fire that's an oxygen deprived fire. If it was truly a hot fire to weaken the steel there would have been less smoke and lighter colored flames.
I did in this thread! Just trying to determine how delusional you are. You know!
Just how many "conspiracies" you "think" our government has perpetrated.
I did notice you ignored the first attempt to bring down one of the towers. I take it by your silence that the first attempt wasn't a "conspiracy" ... and the litigation and evidence presented in the civil and criminal trials were legit.
Do you also believe the assassination of Kennedy was a "government conspiracy"?
Damn, it seems like your good friend the U.S. Senator quitter would have wanted to stay on for at least another term to get to the bottom of all these lies and conspiracies you are concerned about ... but I guess you neglected to bring it up to your "good friend the U.S. Senator"!
I guess the allegations contained in this Grand Jury indictment are a part of the "Grand Lie," right?
WTLL, you sound like the bastard child of WPF and BigIdiotTex. But enjoy making stuff up and being irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
Just trying to determine how delusional you are. You know!
Just how many "conspiracies" you "think" our government has perpetrated.
I did notice you ignored the first attempt to bring down one of the towers. I take it by your silence that the first attempt wasn't a "conspiracy" ... and the litigation and evidence presented in the civil and criminal trials were legit.
Do you also believe the assassination of Kennedy was a "government conspiracy"?
Damn, it seems like your good friend the U.S. Senator quitter would have wanted to stay on for at least another term to get to the bottom of all these lies and conspiracies you are concerned about ... but I guess you neglected to bring it up to your "good friend the U.S. Senator"!
I guess the allegations contained in this Grand Jury indictment are a part of the "Grand Lie," right?
Jet fuel does burn hot enough to melt steel. Sorry, WTLL. You're wrong again.
I see someone beat me to it but I have to put in my two cents, jet fuel does not melt structural steel but I have seen it get hot enough to reduce the structural integrity of steel under load. In the navy I was part of the helo crash fire fighting detail. Part of that training was to light some JP5 in a controlled area and we put it out. Inside that controlled area was a steel stand in for a helicopter. Now it may not have been the more perfect stand in for either hellicopter or building but it was more than sheet metal as they didn't want to have to replace it every few days. Anyway, the fire burned for longer than a few minutes because of problems with hoses and the "helo" started to turn orange. We watched the tail section sag under it's own weight and dip. So it didn't melt but it was affected by the heat.
Try it yourself sometime at home. Get some 3/8 steel or half inch if you have the muscles. Heat it up to a nice bright orange glow and take a mini sledge to it. You can shape it with heat and force.
And if they found molten steel (I think you mean formerly molten) at ground zero then how did that happen? Controlled implosions are not known for melting steel.
The only thing that guy proved was the heat source he used was able to heat the metal rod he used to the point of failure.
He banged the piece of metal on the anvil, you could clearly see it wasn't melting. Again, all I am saying is that it clearly shows that uttering the statement "jet fuel can't melt steels beams" to be a ridiculously disproven argument when it comes to supporting the claim that it must be a conspiracy.
Quote:
The whole argument with the collapse of the WTC buildings isn't just the temperature of the fire and the fact that intense temperature from fire can melt or weaken steel but rather the uniformity of the collapse of the metal structure from within. Not every square inch of the WTC was in constant contact with fire and not every steel beam reached the required temperature to cause it to fail regardless of what the temperature of the fire was, Incidentally the footage shows lots of black smoke with flames of red and orange that's not indicative of a hot fire that's an oxygen deprived fire. If it was truly a hot fire to weaken the steel there would have been less smoke and lighter colored flames.
Jim
Typical for a failed conspiratorial argument, you simply switch to something else. Good example of "moving the goal post." But this argument is equally ridiculous. Most things completely fail when a part of it fails, causing some kind of cascade effect, which results in the rest of it to fail. Your position is equivalent of saying that the failed o-ring on the challenger didn't cause it to blow up because the whole rocket wasn't made of o-rings. Of course not, it caused the leak, which was lit on fire and started to burn, eventually causing a complete, catastrophic explosion.
Most of the floors of the WTC collapsed because the floors above them came crashing down, couple those unexpected forces with the fact that the integrity was damaged due to missing floors leading to all kinds of distortions in the frame, and you have you explanation why the unburned floors collapsed as well.
Really, I could follow you moving the goal posts all day, but, really, my point in this thread was simply to point out to you that if you ever say "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" you are simply ignoring relevant facts and that the argument is not about facts to you.
He banged the piece of metal on the anvil, you could clearly see it wasn't melting. Again, all I am saying is that it clearly shows that uttering the statement "jet fuel can't melt steels beams" to be a ridiculously disproven argument when it comes to supporting the claim that it must be a conspiracy.
Typical for a failed conspiratorial argument, you simply switch to something else. Good example of "moving the goal post." But this argument is equally ridiculous. Most things completely fail when a part of it fails, causing some kind of cascade effect, which results in the rest of it to fail. Your position is equivalent of saying that the failed o-ring on the challenger didn't cause it to blow up because the whole rocket wasn't made of o-rings. Of course not, it caused the leak, which was lit on fire and started to burn, eventually causing a complete, catastrophic explosion.
Most of the floors of the WTC collapsed because the floors above them came crashing down, couple those unexpected forces with the fact that the integrity was damaged due to missing floors leading to all kinds of distortions in the frame, and you have you explanation why the unburned floors collapsed as well.
Really, I could follow you moving the goal posts all day, but, really, my point in this thread was simply to point out to you that if you ever say "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" you are simply ignoring relevant facts and that the argument is not about facts to you.
You missed the point completely I could give a shit if jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt steel. You might be able to duplicate that under the right conditions all day long. But you'll never duplicate a steel frame building to collapse so uniformly from a jet fuel fire like the WTC buildings. I am not moving the goal post. Just suck it up the WTC collapsed because of controlled demolition.
