23Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
POINTS FOR NEWBIES:Originally Posted by Throbert McGee
POINT #1: THE HEAT ALONE DID NOT DAMAGE THE BUILDING ENOUGH FOR IT TO FREEFALL
A random Youtube question:
'Not to change the subject too soon, but I still seek someone who can please explain to me how a 700 degree jet fuel fire can melt steel girders and frames that melt reluctantly at 2200+ degrees.'
QUESTION: Was the heat (i.e. fires) hot enough to melt steel to weaken frames etc. that ultimately causes the entire structure to buckle and free fall?
Take a look:
9-11 Review: Steel-Melting Fires
The simple facts of temperatures:
1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.
The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.
POINT #2: EVEN IF THE STEEL HEATED TO THE POINT THAT IT SUPPOSEDLY CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO STRUCTURAL 'MODIFICATION' OR WARPED SURROUNDING STRUCTURE, IT WAS STILL NOT ENOUGH TO CAUSE THE BUILDING TO COLLAPSE
THE BUILDINGS ALL FELL THE SAME – BUILDING #7 HAD NO PLANE HIT IT. THEREFORE NO JET FUEL. Only fires. So, these fires burned at heat that caused the collapse?!?
9/11 Truth and the Collapse of Steel Framed Buildings | Global Research
“The 1992 edition of the National Fire Protection Association’s Fire Protection Handbook(1) says that structural steel does not even BEGIN to soften until it reaches a temperature of 425 degrees centigrade, or 837 degrees fahrenheit, and doesn’t loose half its strength until 650 degrees centigrade, or 1202 degrees fahrenheit. And W. I. Edgar and C. Musse in their 2001 article “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering and Speculation,” in the JOURNAL OF THE MINERALS, METALS AND MATERIALS SOCIETY (53/12:8-11) state that even with its strength halved, the steel in the World Trade Center could still support two or three times the stresses imposed by a 650 degrees centigrade or 1250 degrees fahrenheit fire.”
FEMA is the federal agency that later came up with a theory about thermal expansion to explain the collapse of World Trade Center 7. Yet in this FEMA statement quoted by Berhinig, we have an admission by FEMA that no such thermal expansion from fire had ever collapsed a steel framed building, even though steel framed buildings had been around for more than a hundred years, since the 1880′s.
In “Fire Inside: Strectural Design with Fire Safety in Mind,” by Carolyn Berry in the August 25, 2007 issue of SCIENCE NEWS, Allen Hay, chief fire safety officer of the New York City Fire Department said concerning World Trade Center 7: “We just expected it to burn out — we didn’t expect it to fall down.” “It’s the only building I know of in New York City to ever collapse (strictly) from fire.”
Upon reading the SCIENCE NEWS article, it turns out that the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) computer simulation, which purported to account for for the collapse of WTC 7, did not account for that building’s collapse. In the paragraph in the first column on page 124 of SCIENCE NEWS, Berry writes: “The NIST simulation, like all models of building failures to date, couldn’t follow the 9/11 collapses through to the end. No computer is yet powerful enough to follow the chaotic sequence of events that ensues when components break apart and a building falls, but this is where research is headed.”
Point WTC7-1 | Consensus 911
The Official Account
NIST originally suggested1 that WTC 7 was brought down by structural damage combined with a raging fire fed by diesel fuel. However, in its Final Report (of November 200, NIST declared that neither diesel fuel nor structural damage played a role in this building’s collapse, and that this building, which was not struck by a plane, was brought down by fire alone.
The Best Evidence
Before or after 9/11, no steel-frame high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire.3 If fire were to cause such a building to collapse, the onset would be gradual, whereas the videos show that WTC 7, after being completely stable, suddenly came down in virtual free fall. This building’s straight-down, symmetrical collapse, with the roofline remaining essentially horizontal, shows that all 82 of WTC 7’s support columns had been eliminated by the time the top started down.
Lastly:
9/11 and the Evidence
If you don't read the above. We're done debating. It's not even a page and even the average high school student could read it and understand it.
As for China or Russia playing a part. Find me just one page or any article or any speculation whatsoever that either is involved. Anything. I am not sure where that is coming from. Possibly, you just don't want to investigate yourself so both of you are grasping for straws. Seems just as reasonable a conclusion as saying 'maybe one those countries did it.'
"Romney said 'Russia is still our enemy'' so maybe they did 9/11. "We don't like that China stocks all our Walmart crap so they could theoretically had a hand in 9/11' LOL But, do you try any research yourselves?!? NOPE!
