| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Why do they put fireproofing on structural steel?
Are you a complete moron?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | Why do they put fireproofing on structural steel?
Are you a complete moron? |
it begs the question why use steel at all if it only lasts an hour, fireproofed or not. was the bridge fireproofed?
the tilley lamps are not fireproofed they use kerosene and obviously start to soften or wilt when used, or maybe even vapourise  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | Why do they put fireproofing on structural steel?
Are you a complete moron? |
Be polite and respectful pepik |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
why do they use fireproofing on structural steel if kerosene lamps are made out of metal? this has you completely mystified? here's another question - if steel is stronger than ice, how did the Titantic sink? Judging from your comments here, this mystery will have you baffled for a lifetime.
i really got bored of your "oh i try so hard to find reasonable explanations but i just can't so i have to believe the conspiracy" act. it is laughable.
this is a simple question - is fireproofing steel a global conspiracy since fire cannot weaken steel, or are you deliberately being ridiculous because you actually don't care at all about "investigating" 911, you just want to come to web forums and ask silly questions and ignore reasonable answers?
why do they fireproof steel?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | why do they use fireproofing on structural steel if kerosene lamps are made out of metal? this has you completely mystified? here's another question - if steel is stronger than ice, how did the Titantic sink? Judging from your comments here, this mystery will have you baffled for a lifetime.
i really got bored of your "oh i try so hard to find reasonable explanations but i just can't so i have to believe the conspiracy" act. it is laughable.
this is a simple question - is fireproofing steel a global conspiracy since fire cannot weaken steel, or are you deliberately being ridiculous because you actually don't care at all about "investigating" 911, you just want to come to web forums and ask silly questions and ignore reasonable answers?
why do they fireproof steel? |
why do they use steel?
why did the nist experiment fail to get the same results after burning for two hours on unfireproofed steel?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBd2CJ8lzV0
its only 2 mintues of your time if you care to look instead of finding excuses not to look like usual.
so it dos'nt matter why they fireproof steel, what matters is what happens to unprotected steel as that is what NIST claims but could not get the same results so resorted to computer graphics, as they can be programmed to get the results you want.
like ive also said, tilley lamps burn kerosene and have no fireproofing either. its the same kind of example as you comparing a furniture store to the towers. so if you want to talk about stupid think about some of your own examples you try to compare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3653675901813925183
or watch the first 10 mintues of this, it aint me saying all of the after reports are false
"if all of the after action reports are untrue for what ever reason, then thats a lie". 3.40-7.00 CNN report.
so whos making it up? because it aint me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The reason I don't feel like explaining is because you are so deliberately ignorant. When does the official story say "fire always causes steel to melt the moment it touches it"? It doesn't, you need to look at a lot more variables than that. But of course you don't want to look at it that way, you want to dumb it down to "I have a tilley lamp therefore fire couldn't have weakened WTC structural steel". I couldn't make up a more facile and ridiculous line of logic if I tried.
If your logic were true we would still be in the stone age since there is no way to soften metal with fire. Similarly, they make ice picks out of steel yet the Titantic sunk when it collided with an iceberg. As I said, your logic would leave someone completely mystified by these things.
| Quote: | | so it dos'nt matter why they fireproof steel |
Of course it matters, what an absurd statement. They fireproof steel because fire can weaken steel, the answer is obvious and rather central to the entire debate. If you won't answer this then you are basically arguing that fire cannot weaken steel, which is so absurd and facetious that is raises the question of what exactly is the point of your little charade. You bend over backwards to avoid acknowledging the obvious yet claim to be in pursuit of truth. Well go down to your local engineering school and tell them you are totally mystified by your Tilley lamp which doesn't melt. Far better than wasting my time with questions you know are ridiculous. Honestly if the "Enigma of the Tilley Lamp" is the best the troof movement can come up with you are well and truly stuffed.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ok so now your saying that the fireproofing was on the steel when the steel was being heated? 
let me remind you, the plane hit the building and knocked ALL the fireproofing of, apparently. so why it matters about the fireproofing is beyond me, because we are talking about bare steel not fireproofed steel.
like the nist experiment showed they could'nt get bare steel to react the same after 2 hours in a lab, so resorted to computer graphics.
why your so bothered about the fireproofing when you mention yourselfs all the time all the fireproofing was knocked off is puzzling.
i love the way you side step certain things then tell me i did'nt do any research , its through doing the research i know we have been lied to, not just about 9/11 but almost every aspect of life including religon.
what convinces me about 9/11 is simply watching ALL the news footage and interviews back again, you don't need computer graphics or naraters, all you need is to watch back all the news media from the day which was provided not by conspiracy theorist or conspiracy theorists websites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1QCSCsCtrg
watch all the parts if you dare, although i doubt you will watch this 10 minute section even. just like you did'nt watch the others i linked that only amounted to 7 mins overall.
take note of the numerous flashes and explosions, if you watch the whole film you will see what i mean, if you don't see them then you either did'nt watch it or your only here to try and provide a counter arguement in order to keep anyone viewing this site from questioning 9/11, although if they have sense i doubt it works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | The reason I don't feel like explaining is because you are so deliberately ignorant. When does the official story say "fire always causes steel to melt the moment it touches it"? It doesn't, you need to look at a lot more variables than that. But of course you don't want to look at it that way, you want to dumb it down to "I have a tilley lamp therefore fire couldn't have weakened WTC structural steel". I couldn't make up a more facile and ridiculous line of logic if I tried.
If your logic were true we would still be in the stone age since there is no way to soften metal with fire. Similarly, they make ice picks out of steel yet the Titantic sunk when it collided with an iceberg. As I said, your logic would leave someone completely mystified by these things.
| Quote: | | so it dos'nt matter why they fireproof steel |
Of course it matters, what an absurd statement. They fireproof steel because fire can weaken steel, the answer is obvious and rather central to the entire debate. If you won't answer this then you are basically arguing that fire cannot weaken steel, which is so absurd and facetious that is raises the question of what exactly is the point of your little charade. You bend over backwards to avoid acknowledging the obvious yet claim to be in pursuit of truth. Well go down to your local engineering school and tell them you are totally mystified by your Tilley lamp which doesn't melt. Far better than wasting my time with questions you know are ridiculous. Honestly if the "Enigma of the Tilley Lamp" is the best the troof movement can come up with you are well and truly stuffed. |
and all the nonsense about the tilley lamps was just providing a equal level of argument and logic as comparing a furniture store to two steel skyscrappers. i already explained this before your reply, but then why would i expect you to listen.
the only reason you here is to keep calling or implying we are all looneys even though there is an abundance of evidence that says otherwise.
why you have never been banned yet is beyond me, you never even provide anything to a debate to prove people wrong other than belittling them. you try to intimidate and put words in peoples mouths and call people as much as possible and thats as good as it gets with you.
you also avoid everything anyone links you then expect us to listen to your spouting on and your religous belief in the offical story.
the tilley lamp burns kerosene and the flame can reach the same tempreture as in the towers. if you'd watched the nist experiment link i provided you'd know there is no evidence that the fires in the towers went above any normal fire tempreture.
steel can be forged obviously, but your ignoring the temprtures needed for that and the tempretures in the towers, they are two differant things.
you car'nt forge steel at lower tempretures can you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Think about it - after it crashed and was engulfed in an inferno, a highway overpass collapsed on top of it. What do you expect? |
A photograph.
A single photograph would be nice.
Just one.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Onwards with the no truck theory! That is unless you are personally going to try to find the photo, which would be very untrooferlike.
Meanwhile, we're stuck with the Tilley lamp. Whether it is more funny or sad, I can't decide.
The furniture warehouse and the overpass fire are completely opposite to your Tilley lamp "logic". The furniture fire and the overpass fire (and Madrid fire, and others) show that ordinary fires - not Thermite fires, not nuclear bombs, not kilns, can weaken steel structures and cause them to fail. This does not mean any fire will always cause steel to fail instantly.
Your logic, however is that since your Tilley lamp doesn't 'fail', then fire can't cause structural steel to fail. This reasoning is so absurd and ridiculous that the most important question is why it needs to be debated at all.
Structural steel can fail when exposed to fire. That's why there are so many examples of it failing, that's why the firefighters died in Charleston, that's why building codes require fireproofing.
But you go ahead and take your Tilley lamp to a local University or Fire Brigade, and tell the engineers about the Great Tilley Lamp Mystery and how the Titantic should have made ice cubes out of the iceberg.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | Onwards with the no truck theory! That is unless you are personally going to try to find the photo, which would be very untrooferlike.
Meanwhile, we're stuck with the Tilley lamp. Whether it is more funny or sad, I can't decide.
The furniture warehouse and the overpass fire are completely opposite to your Tilley lamp "logic". The furniture fire and the overpass fire (and Madrid fire, and others) show that ordinary fires - not Thermite fires, not nuclear bombs, not kilns, can weaken steel structures and cause them to fail. This does not mean any fire will always cause steel to fail instantly.
Your logic, however is that since your Tilley lamp doesn't 'fail', then fire can't cause structural steel to fail. This reasoning is so absurd and ridiculous that the most important question is why it needs to be debated at all.
Structural steel can fail when exposed to fire. That's why there are so many examples of it failing, that's why the firefighters died in Charleston, that's why building codes require fireproofing.
But you go ahead and take your Tilley lamp to a local University or Fire Brigade, and tell the engineers about the Great Tilley Lamp Mystery and how the Titantic should have made ice cubes out of the iceberg. |
how long was the warehouse burning for before it collapsed, considering it is a much weaker building than the towers i'd expect it collapsed very early on?
i also take it you did'nt watch the video link then? i suppose thats the only way to avoid the obviousness of the flashes on the outer wall followed by pulverisation of the building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | What temperature could a paper fire reach?
And as a bonus question, what temperature is the hottest part of a candle? |
Pretty high, just look at what seems no more than a waste paper bin fire that brought down WTC7 at freefall speed into its own footprint. 
perhaps all those demolition experts have been doing it wrong over the centuries, just pour some kerosene into the building, wait for it to burn for one hour, and watch the building fall at free speed, nice and neatly into its own footprint.
Or in the case of the towers, wait for the fire to burn a few minutes, then the whole 'inferno' area will have cooled, to allow people trapped at the impact zone to teeter out of the hole, and seek attention to be rescued. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
what does a truck and a bridge have to do with 911? Nothing. Surely the Madrid fire is a closer analogue?
For all you know the truck weakened the bridge supports. Ridiculous to post this as proof of anything.
Take another 2 weeks off.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
You people really are too stupid to be bothered with.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | You people really are too stupid to be bothered with. |
i'll take that as no comment, i dont have the answers and i cannot accept you have a point about a new investigastion being needed?
its just the usual sidestepping of information you and others often do, and i really expected nothing less other than resulting to name calling as usual.
so i think we have established your just here to call people stupid rather than debate anything they put infront of you that shows why people question 9/11.
flashes in the world trade centres followed by pulverisation of the building, if im a conspiracys theorist then you should beable to explain.
if your the conspiracy theorist then you won't have the answers and you will resort to name calling to cling onto your belief. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | I would say "LRN2READNOOB" or something similarly clever, but my inner voice says "Needlessly snarky! Don't go there!" |
I'm sure your inner voice tells you all kinds of things. |
It does, actually! Among telling me to take guns up into watchtowers and listen to Poison albums backwards, it tells me "Pepik does not get that whole 'reading comprehension' thing." Because otherwise, pepik, you would've realized that the first two quotes you pulled from my post...
| Quote: | | What I have done, you poster child for Hooked on Phonics, is point out obvious structural differences inbetween bridges, a factory building made out of corrugated steel, and the WTC buildings. |
were not even directed towards you! They were directed towards Bushwacker.
| Quote: | | That doesn't look like corrugated steel to me. |
Ok, so it's fake decorative sandstone covering corrugated steel. Whatever. That's what one of the articles said it was made out of. At any rate, it's a f'ing FURNITURE FACTORY. There are still miles and miles of difference between the construction of it and the WTC towers.
| Quote: | | Anyway, I'm sure you don't care. Its like your claim that paper and office furnishings can't burn hot enough to deform steel. |
Are you thick? I mean, really, seriously. I know of several forums where this kind of schlock would earn a banning. I said they wouldn't LAST long enough. I don't care if a piece of office paper is capable of burning as hot as the damn sun, it's only going to last a nanosecond! A stack of it might last, oh, 5 seconds!
| Quote: | | You make the claim, but you have nothing to back it up |
Should I bother? I'm not the one claiming that stack of office paper, a few couches, and whatever remained of the carpeting could burn hot and long enough to deform a steel beam.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | You're right though, pepik. I obviously forgot that workers in the WTC offices passed their lunch hour by seeing how high they could stack the spare cans of polyurethane, extra couches and what not. Oh, and before you mention the carpeting, office paper, etc, care to explain to me how that stuff lasted more than 5 seconds in the apparent conflagration? |
Spare cans of polurethane? It was a furniture warehouse, not a furniture factory. Anyway, you just go ahead and make up whatever you want. Sarcasm is almost as good as backing up what you say. |
Did... did you even bother to read the articles that have been posted in this topic? I just... I don't get it. Why am I even still arguing this with you?? There are more productive things I could be doing, like sleeping or sawing my t**s off with a butter knife!
| Quote: | | That's OK, I'm sure you'd be happier in the other parts of the forum where I found things like the tagline below: |
I love this aspect of OV believers, where anyone that thinks there were suspicious bits to 9/11 automatically gets lumped in with the "4th dimensional Jewish lizard-people run the world from a secret bunker" crowd. You, sir, are a monumental ass.
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whatistruth
Minor Poster
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | The reason I don't feel like explaining is because you are so deliberately ignorant. When does the official story say "fire always causes steel to melt the moment it touches it"? It doesn't, you need to look at a lot more variables than that. But of course you don't want to look at it that way, you want to dumb it down to "I have a tilley lamp therefore fire couldn't have weakened WTC structural steel". I couldn't make up a more facile and ridiculous line of logic if I tried.
If your logic were true we would still be in the stone age since there is no way to soften metal with fire. Similarly, they make ice picks out of steel yet the Titantic sunk when it collided with an iceberg. As I said, your logic would leave someone completely mystified by these things.
| Quote: | | so it dos'nt matter why they fireproof steel |
Of course it matters, what an absurd statement. They fireproof steel because fire can weaken steel, the answer is obvious and rather central to the entire debate. If you won't answer this then you are basically arguing that fire cannot weaken steel, which is so absurd and facetious that is raises the question of what exactly is the point of your little charade. You bend over backwards to avoid acknowledging the obvious yet claim to be in pursuit of truth. Well go down to your local engineering school and tell them you are totally mystified by your Tilley lamp which doesn't melt. Far better than wasting my time with questions you know are ridiculous. Honestly if the "Enigma of the Tilley Lamp" is the best the troof movement can come up with you are well and truly stuffed. |
"How Hard Is Iceberg Ice?
The strength of an iceberg is 1% that of steel and 10% that of concrete. These figures may not sound too alarming. However, a ship colliding with an iceberg would only end in disaster.
The enormous thrust involved and potentially huge contact area with the ice can generate hundreds of tons of force on the hull which would cause it to dent and crumple".
http://www.townoftwillingate.ca/historyoficebergs.htm
http://www.valley.net/~mms/minute/mm980810.html
Although the British inquiry had determined mathematically that the damage to the ship could not have comprised more than twelve square feet, the popular notion was that the iceberg had cut a 300 feet (90 m) long gash into Titanic's hull. Since the part of the ship that the iceberg had damaged was buried, scientists used sonar to examine the area and discovered the iceberg had caused the hull to buckle, allowing water to enter Titanic between its steel plates. During subsequent dives, scientists retrieved small pieces of Titanic's hull. A detailed analysis of the pieces revealed the ship's steel plating was of a variety that loses its elasticity and becomes brittle in cold or icy water, leaving it vulnerable to dent-induced ruptures. Furthermore, the rivets holding the hull together were much more fragile than once thought. It is unknown if stronger steel or rivets could have saved the ship.
The samples of steel rescued from the wrecked hull were found to have very high content of phosphorus and sulfur (four times and two times as high as common for modern steels), with a manganese-sulfur ratio of 6.8:1 (compare with over 200:1 ratio for modern steels). High content of phosphorus initiates fractures, sulfur forms grains of iron sulphide that facilitate propagation of cracks, and lack of manganese makes the steel less ductile. The recovered samples were found to be undergoing ductile-brittle transition in temperatures of 32 °C (for longitudinal samples) and 56 °C (for transversal samples—compare with transition temperature of −27 °C common for modern steels—modern steel would become as brittle between −60 and −70 °C). The anisotropy was likely caused by hot rolling influencing the orientation of the sulfide stringer inclusions. The steel was probably produced in the acid-lined, open-hearth furnaces in Glasgow, which would explain the high content of phosphorus and sulfur, even for the times
you were saying?
Before you start to comparing an iceberg to fire,please do your research before making a fool of yourself.Take a trip to the Glacier parks around the world and break off an ice part in the shape of a spear and see what damage you can do with its cutting/stabbing strength!..
Again-as you continue you dig yourself a bigger hole.
Icebergs generally range from 1 to 75 metres (about 3 to 250 feet) above sea level and weigh 100,000 to 200,000 metric tonnes (about 110,000-220,000 short tons). The tallest known iceberg in the North Atlantic was 168 metres (about 551 feet) above sea level, making it the height of a 55-story building.
What weight was the Titanic...I suppose you are going to tell us that it was a tiny iceberg that caused the damage.!
When pee wee comes up against a sumo wrestler-pee wee is sure able to push him way beyond the line!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
How the logic of ''saddam was involved in planning 9/11 along with his qaedas buddies'' is rather hilarious.
Oh but but but, the kerosene weakened the steel of the WTC, buildings that were made to withstand planes flying into them, but but but the kerosene, it was the kerosene that did it, oh and but but but, the kerosene turned the building into an inferno, so hot that but but but the people trapped could still look out of the impact hole and hang and wave for attention, and but but but, if only the fireproofing of the steel had been coated in the paper made from Atta's passport, then the steel could not have been turned into smolten, it would have moved 20 blocks away and still been standing.
Oh and but but but, those honest genuine people at NIST, very generously funded by government money and governement friends to do there studies and investigations have been busy producing computer graphics and ignoring key questions, and but but but, those crazy firefighters hearing explosions that sounded like bombs were delusional and not to be trusted, yes they risked their lives rescuing people, but when they tell you they heard explosions, what they really heard was the kerosene weakening the steel, oh and but but but that hero guiliani is so honest he would never lie to us.
Oh and but but but, those 9 al qaedas that flew the planes into the building and were subsequently ''beamed up scotty style'' half way round the planet and avoided death in the inferno is not to be discused.
But but but, look, look everyone now, theres Arnie telling everyone that the kerosene has melted the steel bridge, look look look, he keeps telling us and emphasising that the kerosene has melted the steel bridge, he's left all his important work to rush down to the bridge to tell us all on TV, the kerosene has melted the steel and the bridge will be just one lump of smolten steel in a few days time. Its similar to the B movie's he churns out.
The only genuine thing to come from this kerosene weakens and melts steel claptrap is, from now on, all buildings with steel in, can now be insulated and protected with the paper Atta's passport was made from, that way the fireball and ensuing inferno will not burn anything.
Look there's Arnie now, he will protect us from those nasty people who are bombing us and hate us because we are free, yipee, Arnie for pres. 
It seems the saddam and al qaedas did 9/11 and steel is melted by kerosene fantasists are confused, probably too much diet of Arnie B movies to sift fact from fiction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that Channel 4 has the definitive version of the steel fires right here:
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/science/engineering/news_ towers.html
This is titled: Science in Engineering.
Not in journalism though.
Read it and weep Pepik.
| Quote: | Why the Twin Towers Collapsed
Paula Hawkins
December 2001
Updated 2006
When two Boeing 767s crashed into the Twin Towers, Tower One took 103 minutes to fall while Tower Two only lasted for 53 minutes. New York, home of the skyscraper, was now the site of the world's most horrific high rise tragedy. A few lucky people managed to escape before these two great edifices of modern American life collapsed, killing thousands in their wake.
WTC history
The World Trade Center was in fact a complex of seven buildings. Six of them have now partially or entirely collapsed in the wake of the attacks. Construction of the complex began in 1966 and was completed in 1973, at a total cost of US$1.5 billion. The Twin Towers took the title of the tallest building in the world from the Empire State Building, also in New York. They held on to it for just one year, before the Sears Tower in Chicago took the title. The Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, are now the tallest, each standing at 452m.
The famous Twin Towers of the WTC were among the first high rises to use a tube structure, rather than the frame structure used in earlier skyscrapers. Indeed, they were the first very tall buildings designed without any masonry at all. Tube structure buildings are made of a rigid hollow tube of closely packed steel columns, with floor trusses that extend from the perimeter of the building to its core. The tube structure of modern skyscrapers allows them to withstand higher winds. It also eliminates the need for interior columns, allowing the use of more floor space.
While most skyscrapers built since the 1970s also have the tube structure, the Twin Towers were unique in other ways. Light floor trusses had been used in high rise buildings before, but not to span as much as 18m (60 feet), as they did in the towers. The core and elevator system of the building were also unusual. Because it was feared the pressure created by the buildings' high speed elevators might cause conventional elevator shafts to buckle, engineers used a plaster board system fixed to a steel core to house the elevators. This made the shafts more flexible, though also more flammable.
Cause of the collapse
There is no simple answer to the question of why the Twin Towers collapsed. Engineers, academics and demolition experts have not found agreement on the subject.
Charles Clifton, structural engineer at the New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research Association, believes 'the impact damage, not the severity of the fire was the principal cause of the ultimate collapse'. This view is shared by Gregory Fenves, professor of civil engineering at the University of California.
However, Eduardo Kausel, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), believes that fire was primarily responsible. So does Robert McNamara, president of the US structural engineering firm, McNamara and Salvia.
But Oral Buyukozturk, another professor of civil and environmental engineering at MIT and Mark Loizeaux, president of US demolition company Controlled Demolition Incorporated, suspect a combination of factors caused the towers to fall.
Impact
When the planes hit the towers, they inflicted major damage on the structure of the buildings. As many as 40 vertical columns at the perimeter of each building were knocked out. It's likely that the impact damaged columns at the core of the building too – preventing people from escaping down stairwells, which were in the core. However, the towers were – initially at least – able to withstand this damage. Indeed, the force with which the planes hit the buildings was 95% of the wind load which they were designed to withstand.
What is not known for sure, is how much damage the planes inflicted on the buildings internally. Writing in New Steel Construction, Charles Clifton argues that 'having penetrated the perimeter frames, the planes would have done much more than just stripping the fire protection off the columns... The effect would have been to completely shatter and eliminate large areas of floor slabs and many of the internal supporting columns... leaving the rest vulnerable to fire attack.'
It's important to note that the terrorists had either done their homework or were very lucky: they struck the towers at precisely the right height. Had the planes hit the buildings any higher up, it's likely that the weight of the floors above the crash site might not have been sufficient to bring the building down. And lower down on the building, the vertical columns are thicker, and fewer would have been destroyed by the impact.
Fire
The terrorists certainly made sure they hijacked planes which had plenty of fuel on board. A Boeing 767 at the start of a long haul flight would be carrying around 24,000 gallons of fuel.
although much of the fireproofing was removed on impact, it isn't clear whether it would have been able to withstand an aviation fuel fire anyway. The fireproofing had been designed to protect the building from the type of fire expected in an office building: one fueled by paper, desks, and other office furniture. But this fire was different. The temperature of hydrocarbon fires rises much more rapidly and reaches much higher levels than most building fires. It may have reached 1200 to 1500ºC. Water sprinklers are relatively ineffective in combating a hydrocarbon fire, which is usually fought with chemical foam.
The structure of the WTC towers is crucial when considering the impact of the fire. The towers, being lightweight and devoid of concrete, were difficult to protect from fire. The weak links were the steel floor trusses – they spanned considerable distances relative to their thin construction, meaning they would have heated up quickly.
The fact that the offices were open plan increased the fire hazard. The floors of the towers spanned 40,000 square feet, yet fire chiefs argue that it's impossible to fight a fire in an open plan floor space of half that square footage.
Column collapse
The remaining undamaged columns were capable of bearing considerable loads, but to some extent depended on support from the floors to do so. Once the floors had succumbed to the heat of the fire, the integrity of the building was threatened. Core columns were not only bearing extra loads, but were also subject to intensely high temperatures. Once they began to buckle, the crash site floor collapsed onto the floor underneath. The effect was similar to dropping one multi-storey building onto another: each floor collapsed onto the one below, and so on. Once this domino effect had begun, it took seconds for the towers to be reduced to rubble.
Design faults?
Opinions are divided on the issue of whether other buildings could have survived an attack such as those of 11 September. Charles Clifton says that 'the very light and open structure probably made the buildings more vulnerable to collapse from the aircraft impact than would have been the case for a heavier structural system'. However, some architects argue that an old style frame building would have collapsed immediately, and that the tube structure saved thousands of lives.
However, fire chiefs and structural engineers agree that the fireproofing which existed was insufficient. KAFKO, a mineral-based fireproofing applied to the steel columns of the building, was difficult to apply to the floor trusses. Leslie Robertson, the engineer largely responsible for the structure of the Twin Towers, has admitted that although a plane crash was considered when designing the building, aviation fuel explosion and fire were not. This, believes Eduardo Kausel, is 'a key design omission.'
Future implications
Looking at the WTC Twin Towers collapse, it's difficult to draw firm conclusions. Had the building been made of a more solid frame structure, it may collapsed more quickly. But a concrete structure would have been more resistant to fire than the steel tube structure of the towers.
Dr Graham Owens, director of the Steel Construction Institute, believes that 'society has the right to expect engineers and the construction industry to respond effectively to their requirements for buildings to resist terrorist attack.' However, he points out that attempting to terrorist-proof a building will be expensive. Though he adds that it could be possible to build 'vertical bomb shelters' – buildings with an extremely tough concrete core. This would be a safe haven where the occupants of a building could take refuge from a disaster.
'Refuge floors', fireproofed empty spaces every 10 or 15 storeys, are being installed in the Shanghai World Financial Center, currently under construction. But it has been pointed out that if these existed in the Twin Towers the loss of life may have been greater. Occupants may have taken shelter from the fire on these floors, only to be crushed once the building collapsed. The Shanghai Center will also have dedicated fire lifts, allowing the emergency services to access the building without hampering evacuation of the occupants. Stairways are likely to be made wider in the future. Though this will be costly, since it will reduce the amount of commercial space available in a building.
The sad truth is that it might be impossible to construct completely safe structures, buildings impenetrable to any disaster man or nature can throw at us. As Charles Thornton, designer of the Petronas Towers, says: 'For every building that we can conceive, someone can come up with a scenario to knock it down.'
Find out more
Channel 4 is not responsible for the content of third party sites. |
Presumably it is responsible for it's own though.
One day.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rodin wrote: | Pepik
Others will read your response and make their own judgements as to where the balance of truth and decency lies.
Bushwhacker
| Quote: | | No, of course there is no energy deficit, close to free-fall times is not the same as free-fall times. |
This is simply not true and you surely know this.
The fastest collapse times were within a few % of free-fall speed in a vacuum. Unless you dispute the official NIST figures of 9, 11 and 7 seconds?
That few % is easily accounted for by wind resistance. Wind resistance would also have caused some 'fanning out' of debris as it fell, moreso at the bottom than the top. However what was observed was a massive lateral ejection of debris from 1 & 2 - debris was seen falling a good towers-width away midway down the tower. Some of it was literally ejected at right angles to the downwards direction of fall. There are only three ways that could have happened.
----------------------------------------------------------
1) A falling object collides with a stationary object. The downwards momentum is now re-directed (though quite how it could produce a right-angled vector escapes me). Anyone familiar with the way pool balls behave knows that the conservation of momentum principle causes a deceleration of the 'hitting' object as energy is imparted into the target. Furtermore, unless the target is hit straight on, the target ball's momentum in the prevailing direction of the cue ball is lower, depending on the angle of incidence. (For a lateral ejection the angle of incidence would have to be very high - a 'fine cut' if you like). During a hypothetical gravitational collapse (as opposed to in between supping a pint of Timothy Taylor) the moving 'pool ball' would be under 32' per second per second gravitational acceleration all the time, but during impact its speed must be reduced. It would continue to accelerate downwards but from a new lower initial speed. The NIST collapse times do not allow for deceleration following a resistive impact. Without a resistive impact objects could not have been propelled laterally. There is an irreconcilable reality deficit here.
2) Explosive charges blew out the building in a controlled demolition.
3). The energy deficit came from some other esoteric source.
---------------------------------------------
3) is unlikely.
2) has much corroborating evidence to back it up
1) is impossible
-------------------------------------------------------------
You brought up the red herring of loose objects falling faster than the structure. Since the structures fell at free-fall speed (in air) to within a few % and since the loose objects observed were demonstrably falling much faster than the building walls AT THE SAME LEVEL the explanation that fits is that the pieces were releaed not from the TOP but from the impact zone. I pointed this out previously. To try to use that false observation as evidence for a slower collapse shows ignorance or intention to deceive. In fact, I did a graphic that proved the objects in free-fall that came from the impact zone were moving slightly slower than the top edge of the collapsing building - which you would expect since there was more air resistance to free tumbling beams and panels than to a building being brought down by demolition (think being on a bike and getting a 'pull' from a bus in front).
The science logic is inescapable. What is missing is a way to show lay people how ludicrous the NIST collapse theory is. Perhaps I will work on the billiard ball analogy.... |
Gosh, I announce I am off for a while and the brave Rodin, strangely quiet before, suddenly wakes up and posts four minutes later. Since troofers do not believe in coincidence, these things must be connected!
The times you quote are not collapse times for the buildings, they are the times for the first panels to strike the ground, a "mistake" that troofers often seem to make, or a "reality deficit" in your phrase. Naturally in a chaotic event such as a building collapse, some horizontal forces are generated and some debris is ejected from the collapsing building horizontally, it would be strange if that did not happen.
Your attempt to explain debris falling faster than the collapse zone fails entirely. All the debris comes FROM the collapse zone, so the fact that it falls faster than the collapse zone progresses, demonstrates conclusively that the collapse zone is moving slower than free-fall speed. This "energy deficit" is junk science, brought in to try to make up for a total lack of evidence of demolition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Surely it is you who should be weeping?
A conclusion that a combination of structural damage and fires caused the collapse, and that the fire-proofing was insufficient.
EXACTLY! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TmcMistress wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | Well that's it, I'm off for two weeks now. Perhaps by the time I come back marky and TmcMistress will accept that steel buildings can be brought down by fire, rodin will have sorted his physics out and stopped blaming the Jews for everything and Mark Gobell will have thought of some answers to my questions, particularly what he thinks is the most likely reason for a bridge with a burning petrol tanker under it to fall down.
|
I would say "LRN2READNOOB" or something similarly clever, but my inner voice says "Needlessly snarky! Don't go there!"
So I will say it normally. LEARN TO READ. At what point have I said "A steel structure would never collapse from fire"? Go on, take a look. I'll wait until you get back.
What I have done, you poster child for Hooked on Phonics, is point out obvious structural differences inbetween bridges, a factory building made out of corrugated steel, and the WTC buildings.
You're right though, pepik. I obviously forgot that workers in the WTC offices passed their lunch hour by seeing how high they could stack the spare cans of polyurethane, extra couches and what not. Oh, and before you mention the carpeting, office paper, etc, care to explain to me how that stuff lasted more than 5 seconds in the apparent conflagration?
Anyways, I'm out for now, too. Of this forum anyway. You people are fun, but it's a bit too much like a religious convention in here... |
No, you never said that, but you do not much like like saying anything definite, you seem to prefer to operate by snide comments. I have shown you research showing the temperatures reached in an ordinary office fire, but you like to ignore that for further snide comments about stacking up the office contents. I suppose you find it helps you protect your beliefs to avoid facing facts. Bye now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yes you are correct bushwacker, those paper fires get so so hot, in fact all them buildings not built to withstand planes flying into them have just been falling like a house of cards, and the steel has been melting too, how many buildings have fallen at freefall speed and the steel melted due to the intense heat again? but but but most of them eh? what, whats that none? 
and the fact the WTC towers were built to withstand planes flying into them just fell at freefall speed, and those crazy crazy firefighters, risking their lives like that, hearing all those explosions, well lets not believe them eh, they cannot be trusted.
I just dont understand why people do not accept the word of that honourable man of peace and freedom, the truth telling president of the usa, why cant people just leave the mountains of anomalous evidence that contradicts bush's conspiracy of what happened on 9/11.
two planes fly into 2 buildings that were built to withstand such an event, most of the fuel is burnt outside the building, but the remainder just turned the impact zone into an inferno, so hot that seconds later people were hanging out of the inferno zone waving to be rescued. but but but, the heat weakened the steel and it melted, causing it to fall in exact demolition type fashion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | | I just dont understand why people do not accept the word of that honourable man of peace and freedom, the truth telling president of the usa |
I am very surprised you think that about George Bush, I think he is a crazy warmonger and the worst president the US has ever suffered under. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | | I just dont understand why people do not accept the word of that honourable man of peace and freedom, the truth telling president of the usa |
I am very surprised you think that about George Bush, I think he is a crazy warmonger and the worst president the US has ever suffered under. |
Well maybe, but he would never lie to us over what really happened on 9/11 would he?
I just dont understand why people do not accept the word of that honourable man of peace and freedom, the truth telling president of the usa, why cant people just leave the mountains of anomalous evidence that contradicts bush's conspiracy of what happened on 9/11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | | why cant people just leave the mountains of anomalous evidence that contradicts bush's conspiracy of what happened on 9/11. |
Because we are not prepared to accept your word for it that there are such mountains of evidence, and just as well, because when we look at them we find that in fact there is no actual evidence at all, just pretend evidence, put together by people who call themselves "truthseekers" and believe that gives them the right to manipulate evidence in an attempt to support their preconceived views. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | | why cant people just leave the mountains of anomalous evidence that contradicts bush's conspiracy of what happened on 9/11. |
Because we are not prepared to accept your word for it that there are such mountains of evidence, and just as well, because when we look at them we find that in fact there is no actual evidence at all, just pretend evidence, put together by people who call themselves "truthseekers" and believe that gives them the right to manipulate evidence in an attempt to support their preconceived views. |
You mean the put options investigators who were told to stop investigating are truth seekers? and they were making it up when the trail led too close to home? why would they manipulate that?
you mean the people at the saudi embassy who report numerous alleged bombers have turned up alive and well are truthseekers and not to be trusted too?
And all the victims famillies calling for an independant enquiry for the truth are not to be trusted?
And all those proffesionals and pilots and firefighters are manipulating anomoulous evidence? why would they do that?
you think the alleged pilot who couldant fly a cessna actually performed like a super pilot that day? why would pilots say this? what is so wrong with searching for truth? why are you so adverse to people seeking truth? does that mean you are not seeking the truth so you are honest? you sure have a distorted logic when analysing things.
you have nicely ignored the question about the crazy war mongering bush would lie about his conspiracy regarding 9/11, i think nobody noticed you have dodged the question, well maybe i noticed but nobody else.
Fancy that, all that pretend evidence such as put options investigations being blocked, but the real evidence of atta's magic passport turning up is readily digested and swallowed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
