Sky King wrote:

On 11 Dec 2005 16:59:09 -0800, "EagleEye"
<jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> wrote:

But the thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel finally brought down
the noble structures. "As the fire raged it got hotter and hotter and
the steel got weaker and weaker," he says, adding that building a
skyscraper able to handle such a blaze would not have been viable,
financially and functionally. "You could always prepare for more and
more extreme events, but there has to be a risk analysis of what's
reasonable."

The only problem is that this observation is not backed up by reality.
The 9/11 Commission Report itself admits that the majority of the jet
fuel was consumed in those spectacular explosions that occured outside
of the buildings, and beyond that, also concludes that the remaining
fuel burned off within the first ten minutes of the interior office
fires.

Secondly, the fires did not burn "for such a long time". They burned
for 56 minutes in Tower 2 .... and 85 minutes in Tower 1.

Thirdly, and most importantly, there are many clues that indicate that
the fuel was not burning at such "high temperatures". The oft-quoted
properties of kerosene and steel are somewhat misleading. The cited
maximum temperatures of kerosene come from controlled atmospheric
conditions, namely pre-mixed flames. The way that a gas stove or
bunsen burner works is by pre-mixing an ideal combination of fuel with
an ideal combination of oxygen in both a pre-heated and also
pressurized chamber. This finite capacity of energy is called entropy
... it is the second law of thermodynamics and is basic high school
level chemistry. Fuel does not constantly regenerate itself - It can
only be converted to Kinetic Energy once.

There is nothing that would indicate that there were sufficient levels
of oxygen, nor a sufficient and metered, continual supply of a
hydrocarbon based fuel, nor ideal pressure, nor pre-heated air within
the floors of the impact zones of either WTC building.

Would you honestly expect the interior floors of an office building to
replicate conditions that laboratory equipment is painstakingly
designed to do ?

However, what IS OBSERVED are diffuse flames .... they are recognized
by way of their orange and yellow colors, as well as the billowing
dark soot they are producing. These things indicate that one or more
variables is less than ideal, with the logical conclusion that NONE OF
THESE VARIABLES are ideal - (fuel, oxygen, pressure, heated air.)

How many times have the eyes on the burner of your stove, the burner
on your stove, or for that matter the pans you cook with,
spontaneously fatigued, shattered into pieces, or even sagged after
extended contact with the flameface of even an ideally pre-mixed
(blue) hydrocarbon flame ???? Would they do so with one that was even
less than ideal ?

That is essentially what one is being asked to believe to have
occured.....

Additionally, among the many properties of "heat", is the manner that
increased temperatures attempt to reach equilibrium while dispersing
through solids. In temperature exchanges, cooler molecules draw
temperature away from adjacent heated molecules. The properties of
steel and the oft quoted melting points and structural fatigue
temperatures are determined by way of (foregone) measured uniform
dispersion of those temperatures throughout the solid in contact with
the flameface in a controlled environment. For the steel to reach
these temperatures it would mean as a prerequisite that it was
firstly, even in contact with the flame face, and then secondly heated
uniformly by a uniformly controlled flame ... which has been
established as less than ideal (pre-mixed in a pressurized pre-heated
environment).

What is the ratio of 400,000 lbs. of concrete and 200,000 lbs. of
steel - to flame face ???? Was 56 minutes long enough for the heat to
transfer and reach a uniform compromising temperature throughout each
of the connected steel componants by way of a diffuse (cold) flame ??
How much area did the flameface cover ? Was it enough coverage to heat
the metal uniformly ? Was it even (as a diffuse flame) reaching
temperatures that could even potentially compromise structural steel ?

Photographic evidence, as opposed to speculative declarationss that
are questionable on their own merits, indicate that none of these
conditions were satisfied .....

The smoke was black...this means the fires were going out and were
losing (either or both) a supply of oxygen or/and fuel. Another way to
put this is that they were NOT getting "hotter and hotter." They were
getting "colder and colder." Evidenced also in the fire department
recording where they had gotten to the 78th floor of the South Tower
and reported isolated pockets of fire and that they should be able to
knock it down with two lines.

The most tangible example of this "intense heat" being, this woman
shown here in this image, who was brave enough to walk to the edge of
the impact area a few minutes before the collapse of Tower 1.

http://www.inquisitivecitizen.com/images/wrh/wtc_woman.jpg

For her to reach this area, it would mean she walked there from
somewhere else from the interior of the building. To reach the edge,
as a requisite, entails walking across the floor from an interior
portion of the floor. This, would also mean, that she passed through a
raging inferno. It would mean that with each step - her feet made
contact with a floor that was at least 800 degrees Celcius (the point
at which structural steel loses more than 50% of its integrity). Her
clothing does not appear to be affected by flame, nor does her hair.
She appears to be in no agony of her feet standing nor passing over
intensely heated floors. She is holding an exterior support column
that would be connected to that heated floor, drawing some of its heat
...... Oddly enough they look pretty gray, solid, and able to be
touched .... there also appears to be no visible fires, and a whole
lot of black smoking in that same area.

.... These are your famous "compromised and fatiguing floors" ? The
floor (that mind you, that by all models, would be the *hottest* of
them all) that coincidently, a human being with a functioning nervous
system that would be reacting to such heat, is standing upon minutes
before its collapse ?

But enough of silly speculation about the effects of hydrocarbon fires
upon composite steel frames and floor trusses. Luckily for us, someone
has conducted such an experiment for us already. There were several
frame fire tests conducted at Cardington following a fire in the
Broadgate building development in England in the early 1990's.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm

This was the extent of the damage to the supporting floor structures
and joints of a building exposed to higher temperatures for longer
periods of time !!!!

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/lamont4-8.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/lamont4-9.jpg

To make a long story short, if you are relying upon temperature : TRY
AGAIN !!!!!

But just for good measure - feel free to check out the math involved
in both temperature and energy calculation and transfer.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm


Oddly enough, do you know who one of the biggest opponents of the
"fire induced floor failure theory" is ????

Larry Silverstein .... The leaseholder of the buildings......

He immediately filed a 7.1 billion dollar insurance claim against the
22 insurers of the properties that he had purchased that July.

http://www.forbes.com/home/2003/07/23/cx_da_0723topnews.html

If you stood to lose 7.1 billion dollars in court, would you not
devote a tremendous amount of resources to insure that you had the
most accurate information imaginable to present your case in court ?

If the "pancake theory" was so solid and so sound of a premise - why
would the man who stood to lose 7.1 billion dollars not present it in
court ?

What occured instead, is that unlike FEMA and their team of what the
Congressional committee on Science called "volunteer, part-time
engineers operating on a shoestring budget," Larry Silverstein put in
some serious money to have a comprehensive, independent, professional
assessment of the structure by a firm whose main specialty is
determining failures in structures.

http://www.wai.com/Hart/Pages/division_bldg_inves.html

The Weidlinger Report concludes that ONLY CORE COLUMN FAILURE can
account for the total collapse that was witnessed.

http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20021025b.asp

I am a fan of this line, in particular, taken verbatim from the report
:

"Failure of the floors...was shown not to have had any significant
role in the initiation of the collapses."

rivaled only by this one :

"On the basis of a review of smoke plumes and fire spread, for each
tower, the engineers concluded that the fires did not lead to the
collapses of the floors affected before the towers fell."

So in summation, the report conducted by professionals who specialize
in building failure studies, and was funded by the gentleman demanding
the most comprehensive report available since he actually had a
significant investment in the truth ....... is to be thrown away to
the wind .... because it conflicts with the FEMA report that by
Congress's own admission was an underfunded amatuer effort conducted
with the parameters that it be purposefully limited.

Placing the two on the scales of reason .... are you really more
inclined to believe the latter ????

If you would like to look at some of the specific debunkings of
failing floors that are taken from the Weidlinger Report - I highly
recommend this link.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Confronting%20the%20Evidence/wha
t_failed_and_how.htm