9/11 and the melting metal theory

[Praxeas]

Conspiracy theories have said that it is impossible for the jet fuel that burned in the towers to cause the metal supports to become super heated enough to collapse underneath the tons of metal and concrete above it.

Recently a gas truck (not get fuel which burns hotter) turned over and cause fire. The fuel burned so hot the metal supports melted and the bridge collapsed.

If that can happen with a simply overpass why can't it happen with a building that has jet fuel burning and tons and tons and tons of weight on top of it, not to mention the other flammable materials burning away in the towers

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269196,00.html

The elevated section of highway that carries motorists from the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge to a number of freeways was destroyed early Sunday when the heat of a burning gasoline tanker truck weakened part of one overpass, crumpling it onto another.

[Carpenter]

Conspiracy theories have said that it is impossible for the jet fuel that burned in the towers to cause the metal supports to become super heated enough to collapse underneath the tons of metal and concrete above it.

Recently a gas truck (not get fuel which burns hotter) turned over and cause fire. The fuel burned so hot the metal supports melted and the bridge collapsed.

If that can happen with a simply overpass why can't it happen with a building that has jet fuel burning and tons and tons and tons of weight on top of it, not to mention the other flammable materials burning away in the towers

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269196,00.html


I think that Aluminum Foil on your head is causing something else to be slowly melting...

Great Thread Prax! :slaphappy

[Praxeas]

:nutso

[RevDWW]

I wonder have many file cabinets were in those offices and home many tons of paper...............Not to mention wooded desks, tables, book cases. and no telling what other combustibles...........

[Brother Strange]

As an apprentice burner and a journeyman welder working in shipyards in my younger days, I can testify with certainty that 2600 degrees can, given a very little time, indeed buckle very heavy guage steel to cause it to fold and crumble.

[Praxeas]

I wonder have many file cabinets were in those offices and home many tons of paper...............Not to mention wooded desks, tables, book cases. and no telling what other combustibles...........
And dry wall and carpeting

[HeavenlyOne]

Conspiracy theories have said that it is impossible for the jet fuel that burned in the towers to cause the metal supports to become super heated enough to collapse underneath the tons of metal and concrete above it.

Recently a gas truck (not get fuel which burns hotter) turned over and cause fire. The fuel burned so hot the metal supports melted and the bridge collapsed.

If that can happen with a simply overpass why can't it happen with a building that has jet fuel burning and tons and tons and tons of weight on top of it, not to mention the other flammable materials burning away in the towers

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269196,00.html

Ahhh......thank you!

[CC1]

Prax, good thread. I thought the same thing when I saw where that tanker truck explosion had collapsed that freeway overpass.

Conspiracy theorists, for the most part, are idiots. They ignore common sense to their own peril.

I saw a clip they use on websites to try and say that a cruise missle or some other missle hit the pentagon and not an airplane. It is an interview with an eyewitness who says something like "It looked like a cruise missle flying into the building". The conspiracy nuts end the clip at that point which takes that statement out of context because I saw the unedited clip in which he says right after that statement something like "except it had wings, it was a jetliner"

[Praxeas]

Prax, good thread. I thought the same thing when I saw where that tanker truck explosion had collapsed that freeway overpass.

Conspiracy theorists, for the most part, are idiots. They ignore common sense to their own peril.

I saw a clip they use on websites to try and say that a cruise missle or some other missle hit the pentagon and not an airplane. It is an interview with an eyewitness who says something like "It looked like a cruise missle flying into the building". The conspiracy nuts end the clip at that point which takes that statement out of context because I saw the unedited clip in which he says right after that statement something like "except it had wings, it was a jetliner"
Yes, same thing Michael Moore did. It's called a polemic. People can distort the facts or just not show ALL the facts to make a situation seem the way they want it to seem

[HeavenlyOne]

Yes, same thing Michael Moore did. It's called a polemic. People can distort the facts or just not show ALL the facts to make a situation seem the way they want it to seem

I hope Essaias doesn't read this thread.....LOL!

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

We8tjs5ILNkJc

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Gidroaviasalon2006/Highlights/Mi8Jumpers_1.jpg

[Carpenter]

I hope Essaias doesn't read this thread.....LOL!

Oh goody, is he still around?

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Oh goody, is he still around?
Moreso on GNC than here.

[CC1]

Oh goody, is he still around?


Leave it to HO to think of him!!!

I think the black helicopter folks finally got him. He is probably in some secret one world government prison on the same island they are keeping JFK in his vegatative state from the severe brain injury incurred in Dallas.

[Carpenter]

Leave it to HO to think of him!!!

I think the black helicopter folks finally got him. He is probably in some secret one world government prison on the same island they are keeping JFK in his vegatative state from the severe brain injury incurred in Dallas.

:D

[HeavenlyOne]

Oh goody, is he still around?

This thread will be like a magnet to him.

He just started a thread the other day about another conspiracy theory that went nowhere. He was upset that nobody believed him.....LOL!

[HeavenlyOne]

Leave it to HO to think of him!!!

I think the black helicopter folks finally got him. He is probably in some secret one world government prison on the same island they are keeping JFK in his vegatative state from the severe brain injury incurred in Dallas.

I thought of him because him and I were at it about 9/11 not too long ago and he insisted there was no way it could have happened like it did.

There is someone else who argued that no plane was involved with the Pentagon, but I can't remember who that was.

[Rico]

The thing with the towers is that no one was able to get up there to inspect how much of the structural steel had been damaged by the impact, so there's no telling how much damage existed before the fire got hot enough to cause the steel to buckle. The thing that still remains a mystery is how the building fell as fast as it did. According to what I have read, they both came down at such a fast rate of speed that it was as if the buildings were free falling, rather than one floor landing on top of each lower floor. There is a lot about 9/11 I doubt will ever be explained, to be honest with you.

[Brother Price]

9/11 was a true terrorist attack, and was an attempt to disarm us from our stance of preparedness. The Twin Towers came down after the impact, due to possible flaws in the original design as well as the thousands of gallons of jet fuel that exploded.

[Esther]

Conspiracy theories have said that it is impossible for the jet fuel that burned in the towers to cause the metal supports to become super heated enough to collapse underneath the tons of metal and concrete above it.

Recently a gas truck (not get fuel which burns hotter) turned over and cause fire. The fuel burned so hot the metal supports melted and the bridge collapsed.

If that can happen with a simply overpass why can't it happen with a building that has jet fuel burning and tons and tons and tons of weight on top of it, not to mention the other flammable materials burning away in the towers

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269196,00.html

We had the same thing happen in Houston the week before yours in Ca occurred, where a tanker truck turned over and burst into flames. It was so hot it made the concrete turn to gravel. It happen where to major freeways intersect. It will be closed for at least two months to do repairs.

We also had a 6 story building catch fire and weakened the structure and had to be supported before they could go in find out where the fire began. Turns out it was arson.

A nurse had a report due to turn in the next day for a doctor she had not done the report so she just started a fire.

Three people were killed.

So I guess we can have a new conspiracy going about tanker trucks burning down major freeways. :)

[tbpew]

....my :2cents [that is one slow developing emoticon...!]

I am quite sure (but nothing is certain) that most folks who have received the gift of the Holy Ghost and post on these kind of boards are quite confident that PLANES really did fly into the buildings. Dragging the discussion over to the extreme that it was a fiction purpetrated using video and dynamic digital editting techniques is just a silly and regrettable sidebar distraction.

I do not believe that God has called me or I have an election to have a role in pulling back the curtain to expose the darkness that may or may not exist in our national government. I am thankful that there are media outlets that offer a counterbalance to absolute power of central governments. The free press, the internet, and various advocacy/interest groups all have a part (based in their own free-market motivations) in dragging a net through the sea of available information. Folks who want to search through the catch are welcome to do so, but ithey will pay a price; spending time in sorting through the "catch of the day" a lot of stinky dead things are in the mix and it means not doing something else with the hours and days you have been given.

If our elected executive branch of government had any role in allowing an attack to proceed (what much of the speculation involves around codes being broken and Pearl Harbor), everyone of us would want somebody to pursue that possibility to let the facts be recorded.

So for those who get a good laugh out of labelling some folks as "conspiracy nuts", would you applaud your news outlets if they strickly reported what the governmental press release provided them? Would you congratulate them for being so "un-nutty"?

[Eliseus]

1. Where are the facts and figures? Prax and others here who believe this bridge failure "proves" that the two World Trade Center towers were destroyed by fires from the impact of two Boeings need to demonstrate the SIMILARITIES and the DIFFERENCES between this bridge fire and the Tower collapses.

2. Did the bridge collapse at free fall speed, as we all saw the Towers collapse?

3. Look at this -
http://www.infowars.com/images2/sept11/1177887233646658.jpg

Now, here we have an upper level structure collapsing onto a lower level... but no "pancake effect" as was ridiculously claimed in the WTC attack. Why is that? How is it that the towers collapsed hundreds of floors on top on each other, flattening each other at free fall speed (a physical impossibility, by the way), pulverising and aerisolising the floors, the supports, the beams, the trusses, the steel (leaving tons of paper debris undamaged, by the way...) whereas this fire simply dropped one section on top of another section, leaving the support columns intact, the "floors" (roadways) still present (not pulverised or aerisolised)???

If anyone would like to present the TECHNICAL DATA regarding this fire, and attempt to show how it can account for the events of September 11, then by all means, proceed to do so.

Oh, and the personal attacks against "Essaias" are symptomatic of people who have no FACTS but only a BELIEF they wish to promote.

[Eliseus]

http://0301.netclime.net/1_5/8/R/7/114609966282566.jpg

Here is the result of a skyscraper succumbing to a compeltely out of control, raging inferno.

Does it look like what we saw on September 11th?

Not hardly...

The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never.

One might say, of course, that there is a first time for everything, and that a truly extraordinary fire might induce a collapse. Let us examine this idea. What would count as an extraordinary fire? Given the properties of steel, a fire would need to be very hot, very big, and very long-lasting. But the fires in the towers did not have even one of these characteristics, let alone all three.

There have been claims, to be sure, that the fires were very hot. Some television specials claimed that the towers collapsed because the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. For example, an early BBC News special quoted Hyman Brown as saying: “steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel.” Another man, presented as a structural engineer, said: “It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. . . . The columns would have melted” (Barter, 2001).[7]

These claims, however, are absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800° Fahrenheit.[8] And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene---which is what jet fuel is---can at most rise to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel.[9] We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted.[10]

Most defenders of the official theory, in fact, do not make this absurd claim. They say merely that the fire heated the steel up to the point where it lost so much of its strength that it buckled.[11] For example, Thomas Eagar, saying that steel loses 80 percent of its strength when it is heated to 1,300˚F, argues that this is what happened. But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot.

But they were not. Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300˚F” (Eagar, 2002).

There are reasons to believe, moreover, that the fires were not even that hot. As photographs show, the fires did not break windows or even spread much beyond their points of origin (Hufschmid, 2002, p. 40). This photographic evidence is supported by scientific studies carried out by NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, “only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250˚C [482˚F],” and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures (2005, p. 88).

NIST (2005) says that it “did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors”. That only such a tiny percent of the columns was available was due, of course, to the fact that government officials had most of the steel immediately sold and shipped off. In any case, NIST’s findings on the basis of this tiny percent of the columns are not irrelevant: They mean that any speculations that some of the core columns reached much higher temperatures would be just that---pure speculation not backed up by any empirical evidence.

Moreover, even if the fire had reached 1,300˚F, as Eagar supposes, that does not mean that any of the steel would have reached that temperature. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. Put a fire to one part of a long bar of steel and the heat will quickly diffuse to the other parts and to any other pieces of steel to which that bar is connected.[13]

For fires to have heated up some of the steel columns to anywhere close to their own temperature, they would have needed to be very big, relative to the size of the buildings and the amount of steel in them. The towers, of course, were huge and had an enormous amount of steel. A small, localized fire of 1,300˚F would never have heated any of the steel columns even close to that temperature, because the heat would have been quickly dispersed throughout the building.

Some defenders of the official story have claimed that the fires were indeed very big, turning the buildings into “towering infernos.” But all the evidence counts against this claim, especially with regard to the south tower, which collapsed first. This tower was struck between floors 78 and 84, so that region is where the fire would have been the biggest. And yet Brian Clark, a survivor, said that when he got down to the 80th floor: "You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames . . . just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall."[14] Likewise, one of the fire chiefs who had reached the 78th floor found only “two isolated pockets of fire.”[15]

Source. (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html)

[HeavenlyOne]

http://0301.netclime.net/1_5/8/R/7/114609966282566.jpg

Here is the result of a skyscraper succumbing to a compeltely out of control, raging inferno.

Does it look like what we saw on September 11th?

Not hardly...



Source. (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html)

Doesn't look like the integrity of the structure was impaired by a plane going through it. Totally different circumstance, although I see your point.

Good to see you. I knew you'd come.....LOL!

[Eliseus]

The structural integrity of the WTC towers were not so imparied by being hit by planes that they collapsed. NOBODY claims the IMPACT of the planes is what caused the towers to fall and pulverise on their way down at free fall speed.

It is the FIRE which is claimed to have "melted the steel" so badly the towers just collapsed, vaporizing on their way to ground zero.

However, the towers were DESIGNED to withstand jet plane impact. NO skyscraper EVER "collapsed" due to FIRE DAMAGE TO THE STEEL.

The picture above shows that even in a TOTALLY UNCONTROLLED RAGING INFERNO the steel does NOT "melt away into nothing".

Now, how about some FACTS?

Regarding the bridge, WHAT EXACTLY "melted" and what EXACTLY caused the upper level to collapse?

Was it the steel trusses themselves that "melted"?

Or the BOLTS?

Anyone got any FACTS for this discussion?

[Eliseus]

Hey, WATCH THE TOWERS FALL, and tell me you believe that was "a kerosene fire that melted everything so bad the towers just fell down the way they did"...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html

[Scott Hutchinson]

I thought Black Helicopters caused the towers to fall.

[tbpew]

The "source" article/discussion that Elesus copied was an interesting read. If nothing else, IMO, the tone seemed to maintain a certain engineering objectivity to it.

I was very surprised to read the aspect of the material handling:
NIST (2005) says that it “did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors”. That only such a tiny percent of the columns was available was due, of course, to the fact that government officials had most of the steel immediately sold and shipped off. In any case, NIST’s findings on the basis of this tiny percent of the columns are not irrelevant: They mean that any speculations that some of the core columns reached much higher temperatures would be just that---pure speculation not backed up by any empirical evidence.

I am pretty familiar with the landfill (closed) location in Staten Island that was used to handle the logistical management of the materials removed from Ground Zero. This landfill is some 3000 acres (once the largest in the US) and has been closed for receipt of municipal waste before the events of 9/11/2001. It was not for lack of space or disruption of a municipal operation that the affected material had to be quickly transferred or SOLD to the scrap markets!

BTW, I was in New Orleans when a commercial airliner crashed into a neighborhood adjacent to MSY (in Kenner, La). The national safety lab basically reassembled as much of the plane as possible out of the debris.

If the affected materials that represented the entire structural forensics of two high rise super structures comprehensively failing, are rendered unavailable through a SALE to a salvage operation to make room at a closed 3000 acre municipal landfill, there must be someone who can give account for WHY!

[CC1]

SAS,

Was thousands of gallons of jet fuel the accelerate in the example you used of a skyscraper burning?


Apples and Oranges.

[CC1]

There will always be those who seek out elaborate conspiratorial explanations for momentous events. Has been through time.

I am glad to see SAS escaped from the Island prison the Men In Black must have been keeping him captive in.

Hopefully he has found a way to foil the tracking bug the government has planted somewhere in his body or brain.

[Eliseus]

SAS,

Was thousands of gallons of jet fuel the accelerate in the example you used of a skyscraper burning?


Apples and Oranges.

The bulk of the kerosene onboard the planes were detonated and burned off within about the first ten minutes. In fact, the second plane impact resulted in the majority of the jet fuel exploding through and outside of the building.

Please demonstrate how burning jet fuel (kerosene, a diesel derivative) can melt over 75 percent of the entire structure of a skyscraper WITHOUT "large, raging, infernos" being in place.

By the way, does anyone here ever use kerosene lamps or kerosene camping stoves? I wonder how many folks have had their grills melted as a result of this obviously super-powerful destructive open-air conflagration under the hot dogs they tried to cook...

[Eliseus]

There will always be those who seek out elaborate conspiratorial explanations for momentous events. Has been through time.

I am glad to see SAS escaped from the Island prison the Men In Black must have been keeping him captive in.

Hopefully he has found a way to foil the tracking bug the government has planted somewhere in his body or brain.

An d there are always those who seek out cheesy ad hominem personal attacks to hurl against those who simply ASK QUESTIONS and who point out that various THEORIES offered as "explanations" DO NOT ADD UP.

Remember, EVERY "solution" or "explanation" about what happened on 9-11 is a THEORY.

A "conspiracy theory" to be precise, since EVERY "solution" includes a CONSPIRACY of two or more people conspiring to bring the towers down.

So, it is not a question of "the truth versus conspiracy theories". It is simply a matter of "which conspiracy theory best explains the available evidence."

[Eliseus]

Now, back on topic.

Who has the facts, or at least links to articles detailing the facts, regarding the bridge collapse?

Anyone?

[CC1]

Now, back on topic.

Who has the facts, or at least links to articles detailing the facts, regarding the bridge collapse?

Anyone?

Every major news outlet covered it because of the terrible traffic jams it is causing. Should be on CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and major newspapers. In particular I would imagine the San Francisco ones.


Gotta go, I think I hear a black helicopter coming.

[Esther]

The bulk of the kerosene onboard the planes were detonated and burned off within about the first ten minutes. In fact, the second plane impact resulted in the majority of the jet fuel exploding through and outside of the building.

Please demonstrate how burning jet fuel (kerosene, a diesel derivative) can melt over 75 percent of the entire structure of a skyscraper WITHOUT "large, raging, infernos" being in place.

By the way, does anyone here ever use kerosene lamps or kerosene camping stoves? I wonder how many folks have had their grills melted as a result of this obviously super-powerful destructive open-air conflagration under the hot dogs they tried to cook...


If there were bombs used inside the buildings as some have said, wouldn't folks have heard them denotate?

[nathan_slatter]

And then there is the question as to whether Bush is actually smart enough to pull something like that off...

[HeavenlyOne]

The structural integrity of the WTC towers were not so imparied by being hit by planes that they collapsed. NOBODY claims the IMPACT of the planes is what caused the towers to fall and pulverise on their way down at free fall speed.

It is the FIRE which is claimed to have "melted the steel" so badly the towers just collapsed, vaporizing on their way to ground zero.

However, the towers were DESIGNED to withstand jet plane impact. NO skyscraper EVER "collapsed" due to FIRE DAMAGE TO THE STEEL.

The picture above shows that even in a TOTALLY UNCONTROLLED RAGING INFERNO the steel does NOT "melt away into nothing".

Now, how about some FACTS?

Regarding the bridge, WHAT EXACTLY "melted" and what EXACTLY caused the upper level to collapse?

Was it the steel trusses themselves that "melted"?

Or the BOLTS?

Anyone got any FACTS for this discussion?

1. Those towers were built to withstand plane impact according to the planes in existence in 1969! They were small compared to the planes that hit those towers!

2. First time for everything. There are lots of unexplained things that have taken place that, if the same circumstance happened again, the result would probably be different.

3. Speaking of facts, where did you get yours?

[HeavenlyOne]

If there were bombs used inside the buildings as some have said, wouldn't folks have heard them denotate?

More importantly, where did the bombs come from, and how long had they been in place, since there was no way they could have placed them with all that chaos in the space of less than two hours.....that's assuming the bomb placers were on the scene already.

[HeavenlyOne]

And then there is the question as to whether Bush is actually smart enough to pull something like that off...

When someone thinks about the timeline involved, it's easy to dismiss the claims that someone sinister was in play. Even if they had the info in advance, the time it would take to put plans into place would have been longer than what they had to work with.

They had less than two hours in one tower, and less than three in the other. With all the chaos of literally thousands of people trying to escape, people on the ground burning, bodies falling, the crowd watching, and civil personnel barking orders, I highly doubt anything sinister was accomplished after the planes hit those towers, if that was indeed the plan.

[Praxeas]

1. Where are the facts and figures? Prax and others here who believe this bridge failure "proves" that the two World Trade Center towers were destroyed by fires from the impact of two Boeings need to demonstrate the SIMILARITIES and the DIFFERENCES between this bridge fire and the Tower collapses.

Actually the bridge failure is not used here to prove something but DISPROVE the theory that a jet liner slamming into a building and they burning jet fuel burning could not weaken the support columns that had tons and tons and tons and tons of steel and concrete bearing down on it from above. It is very simple...take a look at what happened to this bridge with far less weight bearing down on it and no jet liner slamming into the support beams...just burning gas and not even jet gas and now tell us it's impossible for a jet to slam into a building, possibly already weakening the supports beams, burning with super hot jet fuel and weakening the metal beams (not melting them) enough so that all that weight would cause it to collapse. Everyone else here gets it. I got it when I first saw that bridge collapse.

2. Did the bridge collapse at free fall speed, as we all saw the Towers collapse?
No because it did not have tons and tons and tons of steel and concrete above it to collapse it downwards. Rather it feel from it's own weight downwards. Yes it collapsed down, but because it did not have the weight above it and not far to fall, it did not collapse at the same speed and distance. But the point is the heat was enough to melt the support enough so that even it's meager weight could bring it down. The argument is made that burning jet fuel could not do that to the support beams in the towers. The fact is it does not need to melt them, just super heat them enough so that they are no longer strong enough to support the weight above it

3. Look at this -
http://www.infowars.com/images2/sept11/1177887233646658.jpg

Now, here we have an upper level structure collapsing onto a lower level... but no "pancake effect" as was ridiculously claimed in the WTC attack. Why is that? How is it that the towers collapsed hundreds of floors on top on each other, flattening each other at free fall speed (a physical impossibility, by the way), pulverising and aerisolising the floors, the supports, the beams, the trusses, the steel (leaving tons of paper debris undamaged, by the way...) whereas this fire simply dropped one section on top of another section, leaving the support columns intact, the "floors" (roadways) still present (not pulverised or aerisolised)???
You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. The POINT is that it is untrue the claim that a hot fuel fire can't weaken the support beams in a tower, but we have an example here where this happened on an even smaller scale.
In the towers they had LOTS of fuel to burn, carpets, drywall, papers, furnature and jet fuel. In the towers they had a LOT more weight on top of the beams than this overpass. In the towers, they had a LOT further down to fall. In the towers it was a symmetrical design. It was a building. This was not symmetrical...it was a freeway overpass. So the issue is not did they fall in the same way, but the issue is can a fire of this magnitude weaken the support columns enough for it to structurally collapse? And it seems clear to most here that from this example, it can

[Praxeas]

The structural integrity of the WTC towers were not so imparied by being hit by planes that they collapsed.
The structural integrity of the impact COULD have added to the problem.

NOBODY claims the IMPACT of the planes is what caused the towers to fall and pulverise on their way down at free fall speed.
Nobody is claiming the impact alone brought them down her either. What caused it? Tons and tons and tons and tons of concrete and steel above it and gravity.

It is the FIRE which is claimed to have "melted the steel" so badly the towers just collapsed, vaporizing on their way to ground zero.
In addition to the jet slamming into the support columns. It all adds up

However, the towers were DESIGNED to withstand jet plane impact. NO skyscraper EVER "collapsed" due to FIRE DAMAGE TO THE STEEL.
The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray. We can prepare for the best and worse but that can never totally prevent every thing. BTW Are you sure it was designed to withstand a JET LINER and not rather just a smaller commuter plane?

The picture above shows that even in a TOTALLY UNCONTROLLED RAGING INFERNO the steel does NOT "melt away into nothing".
Nobody claims the steel melts into nothing. It is claimed that the steel was heated enough to weaken it. Have you ever worked with steel? It does not need to melt into nothing to become malleable

Regarding the bridge, WHAT EXACTLY "melted" and what EXACTLY caused the upper level to collapse?
The bridge collapsed under it's own weight, not tons and tons and tons of weight above it. What is important is the overpass is supported by steel rebar, and concrete

Was it the steel trusses themselves that "melted"?

Or the BOLTS?

Anyone got any FACTS for this discussion?
Here are some facts on the towers....left out by the conspiracy theories I am sure

The fuel fire burned up to 1,100 degrees C (2,000 degrees F) for perhaps 10 minutes. It ignited the many plastic furnishing (carpets, curtains, furniture, equipment cases, clothing, fixtures, office ceilings and partitions), paper items (paper supplies, books, pressed wood), and some structural elements (gypsum wall boards, plastic plumbing), which then continued the fire. The exposed steel beams in the impact zone heated to between 700 C to 1,000 C. Steel at 700 C has 50 per cent to 70 per cent of its strength at habitable temperatures; and steel at 1,000 C has between 10 per cent to 30 per cent.


The floors in the impact zone sagged because of broken joints to central columns, heat causing their metal framing to soften, weaken and expand; also because of the weight of debris fallen from above . The sagging floors twisted their joints to the perimeter columns (on the three intact faces); the length of column above a floor joint being twisted inward. For one face of the building, the combined stress of the original weight above it, the added compression from the hat truss, and the torque from the sagging floors were too much. Its perimeter beams were bent inward to the point of failure, and they buckled.


The NIST investigation was an extremely detailed analysis by 200 engineers and building professionals, describing the conditions of the buildings from the instant an airplane collided to the moment a collapse began. The next section of this CounterPunch report carries the story downward from the point where NIST leaves off. NIST concentrated its resources on the greatest uncertainty: what initiated the collapse? It was understood that once an upper block of the building was in motion the structure below would be unable to counter the dynamic forces, and collapse would proceed to the ground.


Physics Problem Number 1 -- Free Fall of the WTC Towers
"How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2), speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from a similar height in vacuum (with no air resistance)?" (NIST FAQ #6)
The suspicion behind this question is that the Towers were weakened by surreptitious, controlled demolitions. In this view, the structure below the impact zone (where airplanes collided, exploded, and fires burned) "should have" provided resistance to the descent of the block above the impact zone, slowing or even stopping the collapse.


The NIST response is that the lower structure was only designed to hold up the weight above any given floor statically, not dynamically. The force imparted by the collision of the upper block was beyond the limits of the lower structure to resist. The lower structure was essentially crumbled by a "hammer" of descending material, and the mass of this hammer increased during the course of the collapse.


http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html

[Praxeas]

Hey, WATCH THE TOWERS FALL, and tell me you believe that was "a kerosene fire that melted everything so bad the towers just fell down the way they did"...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html
It was a combination of Jet fuel, the Jet slamming into the building, everything in the building burning, and the stress of all the weight on top of it.

Yes it can fall the way it did...why not? It was a square building

[Praxeas]

http://www.counterpunch.org/ninelevenconsp11252006.html

[CC1]

Prax,

Thanks for all of your hard work in addressing this. I am having a busy day at work and didn't have time to play like I wanted to.

Very good job in addressing SAS's questions / statements.

I have very little patience for this type nonsense and I am glad you do!

[Praxeas]

Prax,

Thanks for all of your hard work in addressing this. I am having a busy day at work and didn't have time to play like I wanted to.

Very good job in addressing SAS's questions / statements.

I have very little patience for this type nonsense and I am glad you do!
Thank you :-)

[Rico]

The structural integrity of the WTC towers were not so imparied by being hit by planes that they collapsed. NOBODY claims the IMPACT of the planes is what caused the towers to fall and pulverise on their way down at free fall speed.

It is the FIRE which is claimed to have "melted the steel" so badly the towers just collapsed, vaporizing on their way to ground zero.

However, the towers were DESIGNED to withstand jet plane impact. NO skyscraper EVER "collapsed" due to FIRE DAMAGE TO THE STEEL.

The picture above shows that even in a TOTALLY UNCONTROLLED RAGING INFERNO the steel does NOT "melt away into nothing".

Now, how about some FACTS?

Regarding the bridge, WHAT EXACTLY "melted" and what EXACTLY caused the upper level to collapse?

Was it the steel trusses themselves that "melted"?

Or the BOLTS?

Anyone got any FACTS for this discussion?

So, the fact that a plane flew through the building isn't relevant to the weakening of the structure? Get real! Like I said, no one was able to go up there and inspect how much damage had been done by the planes, so there is no telling how compromised the structures were when they came down.

[Rico]

The bulk of the kerosene onboard the planes were detonated and burned off within about the first ten minutes. In fact, the second plane impact resulted in the majority of the jet fuel exploding through and outside of the building.

Please demonstrate how burning jet fuel (kerosene, a diesel derivative) can melt over 75 percent of the entire structure of a skyscraper WITHOUT "large, raging, infernos" being in place.

By the way, does anyone here ever use kerosene lamps or kerosene camping stoves? I wonder how many folks have had their grills melted as a result of this obviously super-powerful destructive open-air conflagration under the hot dogs they tried to cook...


Jet fuel is more of a vapor, than what you get when you buy kerosene.

[Rico]

Actually the bridge failure is not used here to prove something but DISPROVE the theory that a jet liner slamming into a building and they burning jet fuel burning could not weaken the support columns that had tons and tons and tons and tons of steel and concrete bearing down on it from above. It is very simple...take a look at what happened to this bridge with far less weight bearing down on it and no jet liner slamming into the support beams...just burning gas and not even jet gas and now tell us it's impossible for a jet to slam into a building, possibly already weakening the supports beams, burning with super hot jet fuel and weakening the metal beams (not melting them) enough so that all that weight would cause it to collapse. Everyone else here gets it. I got it when I first saw that bridge collapse.


No because it did not have tons and tons and tons of steel and concrete above it to collapse it downwards. Rather it feel from it's own weight downwards. Yes it collapsed down, but because it did not have the weight above it and not far to fall, it did not collapse at the same speed and distance. But the point is the heat was enough to melt the support enough so that even it's meager weight could bring it down. The argument is made that burning jet fuel could not do that to the support beams in the towers. The fact is it does not need to melt them, just super heat them enough so that they are no longer strong enough to support the weight above it

3. Look at this -
http://www.infowars.com/images2/sept11/1177887233646658.jpg


You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. The POINT is that it is untrue the claim that a hot fuel fire can't weaken the support beams in a tower, but we have an example here where this happened on an even smaller scale.
In the towers they had LOTS of fuel to burn, carpets, drywall, papers, furnature and jet fuel. In the towers they had a LOT more weight on top of the beams than this overpass. In the towers, they had a LOT further down to fall. In the towers it was a symmetrical design. It was a building. This was not symmetrical...it was a freeway overpass. So the issue is not did they fall in the same way, but the issue is can a fire of this magnitude weaken the support columns enough for it to structurally collapse? And it seems clear to most here that from this example, it can

Prax, we understood the point you were trying to make. The news reports said the fire weakened the steel support beams and that is why the ramp came down.

[Praxeas]

Prax, we understood the point you were trying to make. The news reports said the fire weakened the steel support beams and that is why the ramp came down.
Thank you, I don't think Essias did though