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
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.
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"?
__________________
Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath [James 1:19]
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 -
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.
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...
Quote:
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]
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"?
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"...
I thought Black Helicopters caused the towers to fall.
__________________
People who are always looking for fault,can find it easily all they have to do,is look into their mirror.
There they can find plenty of fault.
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!
__________________
Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath [James 1:19]
[that is one slow developing emoticon...!]
Linear Mode
