| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject: steel no match for fire |
 |
|
| ive read some perfetic post here im my time, one said and i quote"steel buildings are vunrable to fire". what do you think? should demolition experts use fire for quicker more effective results, thus saving money. or are steel buildings to strong to be bough down by hydro-carbon fires? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject: Re: steel no match for fire |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | ive read some perfetic post here im my time, one said and i quote"steel buildings are vunrable to fire". what do you think? should demolition experts use fire for quicker more effective results, thus saving money. or are steel buildings to strong to be bough down by hydro-carbon fires? |
You've already made this point in another thread, and I have responded to it.
Demolition experts use controlled demolition. Fire is uncontrolled.
Look at it the other way: If steel buildings are invulnerable to fire, then why do firefighters even try to put it out? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:33 pm Post subject: Re: steel no match for fire |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | ive read some perfetic post here im my time, one said and i quote"steel buildings are vunrable to fire". what do you think? should demolition experts use fire for quicker more effective results, thus saving money. or are steel buildings to strong to be bough down by hydro-carbon fires? |
You've already made this point in another thread, and I have responded to it.
Demolition experts use controlled demolition. Fire is uncontrolled.
Look at it the other way: If steel buildings are invulnerable to fire, then why do firefighters even try to put it out? |
i couldnt give a nonsense what you think , im asking other peoples opinions hence a new thread on your point that steel building are vunrable to fire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| why do firefighters put it out you ask, mmmm could it be to save lives? if the building was abandoned and on a waste land they may as well torch it it would save time and be cheaper, because fire is so effective the offical story world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:50 pm Post subject: Re: steel no match for fire |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | ive read some perfetic post here im my time, one said and i quote"steel buildings are vunrable to fire". what do you think? should demolition experts use fire for quicker more effective results, thus saving money. or are steel buildings to strong to be bough down by hydro-carbon fires? |
Haven't you heard Marky? Steel is way too dangerous to use for buildings - the way it rusts (just a fancy name for oxidises, which means burning) means it's just biding its time for the slightest chance to burst into flames!
When money's short and you run out of coal - just burn that rusty old fire grate.
In fact it is so unsafe it melted itself under the WTC!
(Although it did get a helping hand from all the friction it encountered during the 11 seconds on the way down).
And I bet you thought we CT'ers had the weird theories! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:38 pm Post subject: Re: steel no match for fire |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | ive read some perfetic post here im my time, one said and i quote"steel buildings are vunrable to fire". what do you think? should demolition experts use fire for quicker more effective results, thus saving money. or are steel buildings to strong to be bough down by hydro-carbon fires? |
Steel components are extremely vulnerable to fire.
Check out the Madrid fire at http://www.concretefireforum.org.uk/main.asp?page=197
where lightly-loaded steel columns were the only ones to fail.
Why would they bother fireproofing steel girders otherwise?
You've really made a fool of yourself here marky.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:28 pm Post subject: Re: steel no match for fire |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | ive read some perfetic post here im my time, one said and i quote"steel buildings are vunrable to fire". what do you think? should demolition experts use fire for quicker more effective results, thus saving money. or are steel buildings to strong to be bough down by hydro-carbon fires? |
Haven't you heard Marky? Steel is way too dangerous to use for buildings - the way it rusts (just a fancy name for oxidises, which means burning) means it's just biding its time for the slightest chance to burst into flames!
When money's short and you run out of coal - just burn that rusty old fire grate.
In fact it is so unsafe it melted itself under the WTC!
(Although it did get a helping hand from all the friction it encountered during the 11 seconds on the way down).
And I bet you thought we CT'ers had the weird theories! |
That's right, steel is so dangerous we shouldn't build anything with it. Wood, too. I hear that burns pretty good. Concrete is too brittle to rely on for tall structures, but it's pretty good in fire. All buildings should be squat, concrete bunkers, then. [/sarcasm]
chek, you're not actually denying that steel structures are vulnerable to fire, are you?
Steel has many fantastic properties for building buildings with. However, it does have this vulnerability to fire. Engineers are aware of this. That's why they design steel structures with passive and active fire suppression systems that not only protect the contents of the building and resist the spread of fire, but also protect the steel from the heat.
You're going way out on a limb here, chek, and marky 54 has sawn halfway through it. Watch your step. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:33 pm Post subject: Re: steel no match for fire |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | ive read some perfetic post here im my time, one said and i quote"steel buildings are vunrable to fire". what do you think? should demolition experts use fire for quicker more effective results, thus saving money. or are steel buildings to strong to be bough down by hydro-carbon fires? |
Steel components are extremely vulnerable to fire.
Check out the Madrid fire at http://www.concretefireforum.org.uk/main.asp?page=197
where lightly-loaded steel columns were the only ones to fail.
Why would they bother fireproofing steel girders otherwise?
You've really made a fool of yourself here marky. |
so why have only 3 steel buildings fell due to fire(all on 9/11). and why dont demolition experts use fire when theres no chance of loss of life and no buildings around to be damaged? steel buckles or twists and sags ect. it also takes a fire burning for hours to do this not like the brief ones in wtc1,2. so with all that said where did i make a fool of myself? if steel is so weak to hydro-carbon fires why use it to make buildings? its not as weak as critics like to make out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:44 pm Post subject: Re: steel no match for fire |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | ive read some perfetic post here im my time, one said and i quote"steel buildings are vunrable to fire". what do you think? should demolition experts use fire for quicker more effective results, thus saving money. or are steel buildings to strong to be bough down by hydro-carbon fires? |
Haven't you heard Marky? Steel is way too dangerous to use for buildings - the way it rusts (just a fancy name for oxidises, which means burning) means it's just biding its time for the slightest chance to burst into flames!
When money's short and you run out of coal - just burn that rusty old fire grate.
In fact it is so unsafe it melted itself under the WTC!
(Although it did get a helping hand from all the friction it encountered during the 11 seconds on the way down).
And I bet you thought we CT'ers had the weird theories! |
That's right, steel is so dangerous we shouldn't build anything with it. Wood, too. I hear that burns pretty good. Concrete is too brittle to rely on for tall structures, but it's pretty good in fire. All buildings should be squat, concrete bunkers, then. [/sarcasm]
chek, you're not actually denying that steel structures are vulnerable to fire, are you?
Steel has many fantastic properties for building buildings with. However, it does have this vulnerability to fire. Engineers are aware of this. That's why they design steel structures with passive and active fire suppression systems that not only protect the contents of the building and resist the spread of fire, but also protect the steel from the heat.
You're going way out on a limb here, chek, and marky 54 has sawn halfway through it. Watch your step. |
we must take all your points , but when its pointed out the tempreture needed and the fact the fires were brief and that they fell after 1 hour and 1 hour 30 mins and turned to dust before hitting the ground, and that a firman was up near the top saying he could put it out. id love know how the buildings collapsed due to fire so brief and after a short time. so yes steel is vunrable in a raging inferno, but not very vunrable to fires that didnt exsist apart from in a few places and they wernt exactly raging. never the less you'll make out fires exsisted that didnt or you'll refer to the lies of the commission that has to make up how bad the fire was to cover the lies. i have eyes as did that fireman up near the top, you can see clearly how little fire there was infact i think the fireman stated that when he said he could put it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:49 pm Post subject: Re: steel no match for fire |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | ive read some perfetic post here im my time, one said and i quote"steel buildings are vunrable to fire". what do you think? should demolition experts use fire for quicker more effective results, thus saving money. or are steel buildings to strong to be bough down by hydro-carbon fires? |
Steel components are extremely vulnerable to fire.
Check out the Madrid fire at http://www.concretefireforum.org.uk/main.asp?page=197
where lightly-loaded steel columns were the only ones to fail.
Why would they bother fireproofing steel girders otherwise?
You've really made a fool of yourself here marky. |
so why have only 3 steel buildings fell due to fire(all on 9/11). and why dont demolition experts use fire when theres no chance of loss of life and no buildings around to be damaged? steel buckles or twists and sags ect. it also takes a fire burning for hours to do this not like the brief ones in wtc1,2. so with all that said where did i make a fool of myself? if steel is so weak to hydro-carbon fires why use it to make buildings? its not as weak as critics like to make out. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject: Re: steel no match for fire |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | ive read some perfetic post here im my time, one said and i quote"steel buildings are vunrable to fire". what do you think? should demolition experts use fire for quicker more effective results, thus saving money. or are steel buildings to strong to be bough down by hydro-carbon fires? |
Haven't you heard Marky? Steel is way too dangerous to use for buildings - the way it rusts (just a fancy name for oxidises, which means burning) means it's just biding its time for the slightest chance to burst into flames!
When money's short and you run out of coal - just burn that rusty old fire grate.
In fact it is so unsafe it melted itself under the WTC!
(Although it did get a helping hand from all the friction it encountered during the 11 seconds on the way down).
And I bet you thought we CT'ers had the weird theories! |
That's right, steel is so dangerous we shouldn't build anything with it. Wood, too. I hear that burns pretty good. Concrete is too brittle to rely on for tall structures, but it's pretty good in fire. All buildings should be squat, concrete bunkers, then. [/sarcasm]
chek, you're not actually denying that steel structures are vulnerable to fire, are you?
Steel has many fantastic properties for building buildings with. However, it does have this vulnerability to fire. Engineers are aware of this. That's why they design steel structures with passive and active fire suppression systems that not only protect the contents of the building and resist the spread of fire, but also protect the steel from the heat.
You're going way out on a limb here, chek, and marky 54 has sawn halfway through it. Watch your step. |
we must take all your points , but when its pointed out the tempreture needed and the fact the fires were brief and that they fell after 1 hour and 1 hour 30 mins and turned to dust before hitting the ground, and that a firman was up near the top saying he could put it out. id love know how the buildings collapsed due to fire so brief and after a short time. so yes steel is vunrable in a raging inferno, but not very vunrable to fires that didnt exsist apart from in a few places and they wernt exactly raging. never the less you'll make out fires exsisted that didnt or you'll refer to the lies of the commission that has to make up how bad the fire was to cover the lies. i have eyes as did that fireman up near the top, you can see clearly how little fire there was infact i think the fireman stated that when he said he could put it out. |
You're referring to Chief Palmer, who was killed by the collapsing building shortly after he reached the 78th floor of WTC 2 and reported 2 isolated fires. If he had gotten as far as the 80th floor or above, he would have encountered an inferno covering essentially the entire floor. I'll find pictures and post them in an edit.
edit: Here's a pretty comprehensive set of pictures of WTC 2 burning, showing the floor numbers. Remember, Chief Palmer was on the 78th floor when he radioed in.
http://www.debunking911.com/fire2.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/fire3.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/fire4.htm
Last edited by chipmunk stew on Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The fireproofing of the steel in WTC7 was in no way compromised by aircraft impacts so if it was brought down perfectly symetrically by a few strategically placed fires we could be entering a new era of steel framed building demolition, it would be interesting to find out whether or not insurance companies have altered their skyscraper insurance fire cover post 9/11, I'll get back to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | The fireproofing of the steel in WTC7 was in no way compromised by aircraft impacts so if it was brought down perfectly symetrically by a few strategically placed fires we could be entering a new era of steel framed building demolition, it would be interesting to find out whether or not insurance companies have altered their skyscraper insurance fire cover post 9/11, I'll get back to you. |
Two words: Verizon Building.
Due to all the smoke, you can't really see the damage to WTC7, pre-collapse. However, you can see that the nearby Verizon building was heavily damaged. This was an old building that was built like a fortress compared to our modern skyscrapers, but even it took a beating from the debris falling from the tower.
Also, when WTC7 completed it's "perfectly symmetrical" collapse, why was there several stories of debris piled up on the side of the Verizon building? Was the Verizon building in the "footprint" of WTC7? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | The fireproofing of the steel in WTC7 was in no way compromised by aircraft impacts so if it was brought down perfectly symetrically by a few strategically placed fires we could be entering a new era of steel framed building demolition, it would be interesting to find out whether or not insurance companies have altered their skyscraper insurance fire cover post 9/11, I'll get back to you. |
Two words: Verizon Building.
Due to all the smoke, you can't really see the damage to WTC7, pre-collapse. However, you can see that the nearby Verizon building was heavily damaged. This was an old building that was built like a fortress compared to our modern skyscrapers, but even it took a beating from the debris falling from the tower.
Also, when WTC7 completed it's "perfectly symmetrical" collapse, why was there several stories of debris piled up on the side of the Verizon building? Was the Verizon building in the "footprint" of WTC7? |
I'm reliably informed (popmech' radio person) the "20 lower floor WTC7 clean gouge out" was photographed, so how could this crucial damage be obscured by smoke?
Maybe the WTC7 rubble piled on the Verizon building could have been a factor in creating, for the third time that day, that extraordinary phenomenon of a natural blast furnace that smelted metal debris for 8 weeks!?!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
I'm reliably informed (popmech' radio person) the "20 lower floor WTC7 clean gouge out" was photographed, so how could this crucial damage be obscured by smoke?
|
Umm... have you seen the pictures? It was a LOT of smoke.
Even if it was, as you claim, just dust from the collapse of the towers, it would still be a LOT of dust, enough to easily obscure the entire face of the building.
| Quote: |
Maybe the WTC7 rubble piled on the Verizon building could have been a factor in creating, for the third time that day, that extraordinary phenomenon of a natural blast furnace that smelted metal debris for 8 weeks!?! |
Smart move, changing the subject before you make a complete ass of yourself. Although I think you're a little late. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: |
Two words: Verizon Building.
Due to all the smoke, you can't really see the damage to WTC7, pre-collapse. However, you can see that the nearby Verizon building was heavily damaged. This was an old building that was built like a fortress compared to our modern skyscrapers, but even it took a beating from the debris falling from the tower.
Also, when WTC7 completed it's "perfectly symmetrical" collapse, why was there several stories of debris piled up on the side of the Verizon building? Was the Verizon building in the "footprint" of WTC7? |
aggle-rithm, there's a wealth of photos of 'incidental' WTC7 damage at:
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP02Screen.pdf
best of luck - I'm off to look for the other volumes 
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
I'm reliably informed (popmech' radio person) the "20 lower floor WTC7 clean gouge out" was photographed, so how could this crucial damage be obscured by smoke?
|
Umm... have you seen the pictures? It was a LOT of smoke.
Even if it was, as you claim, just dust from the collapse of the towers, it would still be a LOT of dust, enough to easily obscure the entire face of the building.
| Quote: |
Maybe the WTC7 rubble piled on the Verizon building could have been a factor in creating, for the third time that day, that extraordinary phenomenon of a natural blast furnace that smelted metal debris for 8 weeks!?! |
Smart move, changing the subject before you make a complete ass of yourself. Although I think you're a little late. |
HAHAAA! What's wrong truth hurt? out of your depth? the natural blast furnace is your baby.
Changing the subject ?Pots and kettles! I pointed out on another thread that the twin tower floors with the fires blew out horizontally in pyroclastic toxic flows toward New Jersey and therefore couldn't have instigated your "blast furnaces" below ground zero...and what did you do? you diverted this uncomfortable fact by disputing the semantics of calling that thermally heated micro powder boiling entity pyroclastic! I fully expect you to avoid the main point again.
Last edited by SHERITON HOTEL on Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: |
Two words: Verizon Building.
Due to all the smoke, you can't really see the damage to WTC7, pre-collapse. However, you can see that the nearby Verizon building was heavily damaged. This was an old building that was built like a fortress compared to our modern skyscrapers, but even it took a beating from the debris falling from the tower.
Also, when WTC7 completed it's "perfectly symmetrical" collapse, why was there several stories of debris piled up on the side of the Verizon building? Was the Verizon building in the "footprint" of WTC7? |
aggle-rithm, there's a wealth of photos of 'incidental' WTC7 damage at:
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP02Screen.pdf
best of luck - I'm off to look for the other volumes |
Sorry, can't find the '20 lower floor WTC7 central gouge out' photo the chap from popular mechanics was going on about on that 'Arizona radio' show, what page is it on? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
I'm reliably informed (popmech' radio person) the "20 lower floor WTC7 clean gouge out" was photographed, so how could this crucial damage be obscured by smoke?
|
Umm... have you seen the pictures? It was a LOT of smoke.
Even if it was, as you claim, just dust from the collapse of the towers, it would still be a LOT of dust, enough to easily obscure the entire face of the building.
| Quote: |
Maybe the WTC7 rubble piled on the Verizon building could have been a factor in creating, for the third time that day, that extraordinary phenomenon of a natural blast furnace that smelted metal debris for 8 weeks!?! |
Smart move, changing the subject before you make a complete ass of yourself. Although I think you're a little late. |
HAHAAA! What's wrong truth hurt? out of your depth? the natural blast furnace is your baby.
Changing the subject ?Pots and kettles! I pointed out on another thread that the twin tower floors with the fires blew out horizontally in pyroclastic toxic flows toward New Jersey and therefore couldn't have instigated your "blast furnaces" below ground zero...and what did you do? you diverted this uncomfortable fact by disputing the semantics of calling that thermally heated micro powder boiling entity pyroclastic! I fully expect you to avoid the main point again. |
From wikipedia:
"Flows containing a high proportion of gas to rock are known as pyroclastic surges."
You can't even get your wrong facts right.
You wouldn't know a pyroclastic flow if your address was 1 High Street, Pompeii.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
I'm reliably informed (popmech' radio person) the "20 lower floor WTC7 clean gouge out" was photographed, so how could this crucial damage be obscured by smoke?
|
Umm... have you seen the pictures? It was a LOT of smoke.
Even if it was, as you claim, just dust from the collapse of the towers, it would still be a LOT of dust, enough to easily obscure the entire face of the building.
| Quote: |
Maybe the WTC7 rubble piled on the Verizon building could have been a factor in creating, for the third time that day, that extraordinary phenomenon of a natural blast furnace that smelted metal debris for 8 weeks!?! |
Smart move, changing the subject before you make a complete ass of yourself. Although I think you're a little late. |
HAHAAA! What's wrong truth hurt? out of your depth? the natural blast furnace is your baby.
Changing the subject ?Pots and kettles! I pointed out on another thread that the twin tower floors with the fires blew out horizontally in pyroclastic toxic flows toward New Jersey and therefore couldn't have instigated your "blast furnaces" below ground zero...and what did you do? you diverted this uncomfortable fact by disputing the semantics of calling that thermally heated micro powder boiling entity pyroclastic! I fully expect you to avoid the main point again. |
From wikipedia:
"Flows containing a high proportion of gas to rock are known as pyroclastic surges."
You can't even get your wrong facts right.
You wouldn't know a pyroclastic flow if your address was 1 High Street, Pompeii. |
You too choosing to avoid the main point is noted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:43 pm Post subject: Re: steel no match for fire |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | ive read some perfetic post here im my time, one said and i quote"steel buildings are vunrable to fire". what do you think? should demolition experts use fire for quicker more effective results, thus saving money. or are steel buildings to strong to be bough down by hydro-carbon fires? |
Haven't you heard Marky? Steel is way too dangerous to use for buildings - the way it rusts (just a fancy name for oxidises, which means burning) means it's just biding its time for the slightest chance to burst into flames!
When money's short and you run out of coal - just burn that rusty old fire grate.
In fact it is so unsafe it melted itself under the WTC!
(Although it did get a helping hand from all the friction it encountered during the 11 seconds on the way down).
And I bet you thought we CT'ers had the weird theories! |
That's right, steel is so dangerous we shouldn't build anything with it. Wood, too. I hear that burns pretty good. Concrete is too brittle to rely on for tall structures, but it's pretty good in fire. All buildings should be squat, concrete bunkers, then. [/sarcasm]
chek, you're not actually denying that steel structures are vulnerable to fire, are you?
Steel has many fantastic properties for building buildings with. However, it does have this vulnerability to fire. Engineers are aware of this. That's why they design steel structures with passive and active fire suppression systems that not only protect the contents of the building and resist the spread of fire, but also protect the steel from the heat.
You're going way out on a limb here, chek, and marky 54 has sawn halfway through it. Watch your step. |
Yes your certainty can only mean you are absolutely correct.
In fact it is so dangerous and vulnerable to fire, no steel frame building ever collapsed from it before.
Or since. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Very interesting... a lot of buildings quite a distance away from the towers took heavy damage. I think this pretty much disproves two things:
1. The towers fell in their own footprint.
2. WTC7 was too far away to be heavily damaged by falling debris. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
HAHAAA! What's wrong truth hurt? out of your depth? the natural blast furnace is your baby.
Changing the subject ?Pots and kettles! I pointed out on another thread that the twin tower floors with the fires blew out horizontally in pyroclastic toxic flows toward New Jersey and therefore couldn't have instigated your "blast furnaces" below ground zero...and what did you do? you diverted this uncomfortable fact by disputing the semantics of calling that thermally heated micro powder boiling entity pyroclastic! I fully expect you to avoid the main point again. |
If by "natural blast furnace" you are referring to the fires underneath the debris, I would be glad to discuss it.
First, I think descriptions like "basements full of molten steel", as I've heard around here, are a gross exaggeration. There were a few witnesses that said they saw molten steel, and I've seen a few pictures where there was red-hot steel pulled from the wreckage. I would hesitate to take the eyewitness testimony as scientific evidence of molten steel, since it would have been difficult or impossible to identify the molten substance they saw. Even so, it's possible that there was some molten steel under there. As far as the mechanism by which it could have melted, I honestly don't know. There was a lot going on under that rubble, and I don't have all the facts. (Nor, I suspect, does anyone else.)
HOWEVER -- because I don't know, I don't assume the existence of a conspiracy. I would guess that there was a link between the molten steel (if it existed) and the extremely hot environment created by the fires. To me, that's a pretty logical explanation, since it doesn't require the introduction of unknown entities into the equation.
So let's get back to your argument: Do YOU know of any mechanism that would keep temperatures so high for so long, one that is more likely than burning debris? If so, how does this mechanism support the idea of a conspiracy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | First, I think descriptions like "basements full of molten steel", as I've heard around here, are a gross exaggeration. . |
Just as an aside here, and entirely speculatively, I saw an estimate of 4000lbs of thermate required to take down one tower, (10 men, 10 trips, 40lbs. a trip).
"Thermate is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature.
http://www.answers.com/topic/thermate
"The usual proportions of ferro-thermite are 25% aluminum and 75% iron oxide. The iron oxide usually used is not rust (Fe2O3) but iron scale (Fe3O4)."
http://www.textfiles.com/humor/thermite.ana
So taking our hypothetical 4000lb figure 75% of 68% is a shade over 2000lbs of iron oxide which when molten would occupy approx 150litres - about the size of an undercounter fridge, per building, ignoring any additional molten steel produced during the burning process.
With interconnected basements this would flow to the lowest points and collect in a fairly substantial puddle. As it did.
See 4:10 into:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5euZtUSxRjY |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | First, I think descriptions like "basements full of molten steel", as I've heard around here, are a gross exaggeration. . |
Just as an aside here, and entirely speculatively, I saw an estimate of 4000lbs of thermate required to take down one tower, (10 men, 10 trips, 40lbs. a trip).
"Thermate is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature.
http://www.answers.com/topic/thermate
"The usual proportions of ferro-thermite are 25% aluminum and 75% iron oxide. The iron oxide usually used is not rust (Fe2O3) but iron scale (Fe3O4)."
http://www.textfiles.com/humor/thermite.ana
So taking our hypothetical 4000lb figure 75% of 68% is a shade over 2000lbs of iron oxide which when molten would occupy approx 150litres - about the size of an undercounter fridge, per building, ignoring any additional molten steel produced during the burning process.
With interconnected basements this would flow to the lowest points and collect in a fairly substantial puddle. As it did.
See 4:10 into:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5euZtUSxRjY |
And stay at that temperature for weeks? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | chek wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | First, I think descriptions like "basements full of molten steel", as I've heard around here, are a gross exaggeration. . |
Just as an aside here, and entirely speculatively, I saw an estimate of 4000lbs of thermate required to take down one tower, (10 men, 10 trips, 40lbs. a trip).
"Thermate is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature.
http://www.answers.com/topic/thermate
"The usual proportions of ferro-thermite are 25% aluminum and 75% iron oxide. The iron oxide usually used is not rust (Fe2O3) but iron scale (Fe3O4)."
http://www.textfiles.com/humor/thermite.ana
So taking our hypothetical 4000lb figure 75% of 68% is a shade over 2000lbs of iron oxide which when molten would occupy approx 150litres - about the size of an undercounter fridge, per building, ignoring any additional molten steel produced during the burning process.
With interconnected basements this would flow to the lowest points and collect in a fairly substantial puddle. As it did.
See 4:10 into:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5euZtUSxRjY |
And stay at that temperature for weeks? |
Yes it is all very interesting.
Maybe it had cooled down to that temperture from something even more shocking than planes in buildings?
That's why a re-investigation is necessary that answers all the questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | That's why a re-investigation is necessary that answers all the questions. |
Ah, the place of eternal refuge.
The place you always retreat to when confronted with incontrovertible evidence that you are just plain wrong.
The place that allows you to justify carrying on deluding in your faith-based beliefs.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | | That's why a re-investigation is necessary that answers all the questions. |
Ah, the place of eternal refuge.
The place you always retreat to when confronted with incontrovertible evidence that you are just plain wrong.
The place that allows you to justify carrying on deluding in your faith-based beliefs. |
Wrong? About what?
Thermate and molten steel?
I can't see how that is now arguable at all, being evidence based unlike your faith-based belief that the suspicion of who carried it out can't possibly be true.
I'm sure most reasonable people would prefer the cool examination of an impartial investigation, wherever the chips may fall, to the lynch mob alternative. The only reason we aren't there yet is lack of political will to do so, and that will come, be sure of that.
If anybody is in denial here, I would suggest you look in the mirror. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | Wrong? About what?
Thermate and molten steel?
I can't see how that is now arguable at all, being evidence based unlike your faith-based belief that the suspicion of who carried it out can't possibly be true.
I'm sure most reasonable people would prefer the cool examination of an impartial investigation, wherever the chips may fall, to the lynch mob alternative. The only reason we aren't there yet is lack of political will to do so, and that will come, be sure of that.
If anybody is in denial here, I would suggest you look in the mirror. |
While we're at it, why not launch an investigation to see whether 2 + 2 really is 4, because there are people who can't see how it is possible?
Wouldn't it just be better to educate those people, since they wouldn't accept a "4" conclusion anyway? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
Yes it is all very interesting.
Maybe it had cooled down to that temperture from something even more shocking than planes in buildings?
|
Maybe you're right!
Now can you explain how the VAPORIZED steel stayed in the rubble instead of rising up through the rubble and floating off with the wind? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
