Timberwoof wrote:
Hank <"impeach"@bu$h.gov> wrote:
The fires were not hot enough to significantly
weaken the fire resistant steel in the towers, let
alone liquefy it.
Yes, yet were hot enough to do that.
Not even close. You usually present yourself as a smart
guy, Timberwoof. I'm somewhat surprised that you didn't
make the effort to get informed before posting your
opinion. Temperatures in the 3000 F degree range were
required to liquefy the steel in the Towers. After the
initial, rapid burn off of the jet fuel, the fires in the
Towers were relatively cold, oxygen starved fires, which
is evident by the thick, black smoke and lack of visible
flames. The fires in WTC7 were barely visible at all.
Yet, liquefied steel was found
at all three collapse sites. This fact is ignored
by the "magic fires somehow did it" conspiracy
theorists.
Steel is not fire resistant.
Steel is made with varying alloys, and has varying levels of
resistance to heat. The steel in the twin towers was certified
to hold it's strength for several hours at 2000 degrees F. The
fires in the towers didn't get anywhere near that hot.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
"We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The
time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be
exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all
agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I
think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt
until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown
would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those
buildings makes no sense at all."
And since liquefied steel was found, clearly the fires were hot
enough to do that.
That's a completely absurd argument. You can and should
do much better. Since we know for a fact that the fires
never even got near the temperature required to melt
the steel in the towers or WTC7, the presence of molten
metal at all three collapse sites proves that another
heat source was involved.
Also, the 800-1000 degree fires were near the top of
the twin towers, yet the 3000 degree liquefied pools of
metal were found deep below ground level under the debris.
Your "magic fires somehow did it" theory can't explain that
fact, either.
I'm not sure who told you that, but it doesn't apply to
the construction of the towers. They had massive internal
steel core columns that were the main supporting structure
of the building.
No, the structural support was shared by the core and the outside
columns.
The massive internal steel core columns were the main
supporting structures of the buildings.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
The towers were designed to support several times their
weight as well as 160 mph winds. They were dramatically
over-engineeered, which is why a gravity fed collapse was
impossible.
Since a "gravity-fed collapse" is precisely what happened,
it is not impossible.
Another absurd argument and this one violates the laws
of physics, photo evidence, and eyewitness testimony.
Fires can't make a steel framed
building fail in an instant and drop at virtual
free fall speed. When steel is gradually heated it
will gradually fail.
Yeah, it might take about an hour to heat the steel enough that it
is too weak to hold up the higher floors.
That would require more that several hours at temps over
2000 degrees F, and the fires never got anywhere near that
hot. And even if they did, the failure would have been
gradual, asymmetric, and progressive, not total, instant,
and symmetric.
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
That's what happens to smaller buildings...
Please explain how 15 additional floors caused
every vertical steel support column in WTC to fail
completely and instantly at exactly the same instant,
even though most of the building was undamaged and
not exposed to any fire.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
There are plenty of other research papers that contradict this.
If so, they rely on opinion and speculation, and contradict
science, physics, photo evidence, and eyewitness testimony.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Steven Jones' paper is the best and most thorough I've
seen. Is there anything in his paper that you find misleading
or inaccurate? If so, can you quote it and explain why
you disagree with it?
.
