I'm not touching this topic with a ten foot pole.

He's saying that given the melting point of steel there's no possible way that the structure could've collapsed. The steel couldn't have possibly melted or failed enough to cause a structural collapse. Circumstancial evidence at best. Especially considering the remains of the building was sold as scrap very shortly after. Gee, I wonder why.

Oops! I touched it.

I spent a lot of time explaining temps because it proves that molten steel found in the remains is simply impossible to make with a measly jet fuel fire.

I've said it many times, these 3 buildings are the only examples of it. If the pancake theory was at all plausible the building still wouldn't have collapsed like it did. The outer part of the building would have collapsed leaving at least half of the 47-central support columns intact. The reason that pancake collapses are so invalid and never occur is because of the stress imposed on the building vs. what it's built to withstand.

-Thomas W. Eagar, Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems MIT



As you can see in the video of the inferno I posted before it takes a lot to make floors collapse from a fire and nothing resembling the WTCs occurred.

See, the thing is, you don't need a metal to melt in order for mechanical failure. Once you hit halfway to the melting point you have to start to worry about increased fatigue and at 70% you're going to get creep and lots of slip going on.

Of course, there's also the phase transformation from ferrite to austenite at 1330°F which makes the steel go from a BCC crystal structure with a lattice constant of around 0.2866nm to austinic FCC with a lattice constant of 0.3605nm or so. That's around a 20% mismatch. Add on to that austenite's higher ductility over ferrite and you get a good reason why a building could collapse well below steel's melting point.

One of the main reasons cited as to why it's not seen in other large buildings during fires is that in this fire, the heat resistant coating around the columns had been blown off during impact. So without both the structural support of the concrete around the steel and its insulating properties, the steel was just sitting there failing.

Also, I believe the explanation for the building collapsing before the stuff on top of it is because of a pressure wave travelling down inside of the building. Much like how when you drop a book there's a high pressure zone underneath the book and a low pressure area above it, air would be forced down infront of the collapsing structure causing those exposions seen in the lobby (air getting pushed down an elevator only has so many places to try and escape).

Funny. What's a Non-Prepubescent-Grammar-Kid? I'd like to know where the grammar part kicks in.

Well, let's examine what the official reports have to say.

-FEMA Report, Chapter 2

The last part of that statement is really funny. It places the blame on regular isolated office fires that I've pointed out problems with. [Black Smoke, hardly any visible flames] :tpg:

Did you even understand a quarter of what RR said.

I have my money on "no."

So why are you still posting.

oh u no

Do you need to see it again?

-Thomas W. Eagar, Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems MIT

In case you didn't know, 650C would be 1202F. That's considerably hotter then the majority of the fires in the building. If you missed it before, jet fuel couldn't possibly reach higher then 1800F, and that would be a small fraction of fires lasting no more then 10 minutes. [Mind you there is absolutely no proof to confirm temperatures ever got that high.] Even assuming that this some how did massive fatal damage to the steel that would not account for the behavior of WTC 7.

I'm not asking if you can copypasta something an MIT professor said, dipshit.

I'm asking if you can actually READ and COMPREHEND what RacinReaver TYPED from HIS OWN KEYBOARD.

It is you who is not comprehending here, pal.

I personally think I didn't quite comprehend the second paragraph, for the record.

I am going to spell it out for you.

I don't particularly give a shit about what you're saying. However, you care about what you are saying, and what is being said to you in this thread.

Someone is coming along (with far greater knowlege, trust me,) and disproving quite well what you're saying.

Copying and pasting the same shit over and over again and bolding some line is not going to help you.

Give up while you're behind.

ok, let me try and state it a bit better.

Basically the official claims rely heavily on the idea that steel was extremely hot. Big fires that could have reached 1800F or possibly even more. Yet the fact remains that they have no samples to prove this which is what my official quote from NSIT said.

In any event, these hot fires quickly drop in temperature to a normal office fire. So the 10 minute exposure to a few hundred degrees is negligible, and again can't even be accounted for in the WTC7 building.

I personally think I didn't quite comprehend the entire thread. Endless theories and people who don't take my advice(sup phil?) will drag this on and run it into the ground. Great job there, having your opinion questioned by others and getting all defensive with quotes from people with their own concepts.

This never ends.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/1...7frames9jq.gif

What part of "I don't give a shit" do you have a problem with understanding.

You had a lot of talk there, but you gave absolutely no explanation. So if I'm being disproved I'd sure like to see it. You're simply ignoring everything stated that has some logic behind it. Get off RRs dick and learn to think for yourself.

I was talking to Aardark, btw. You know, give clarification on that 2nd paragraph from before.

This may seem like an off-the-wall question, but why do you keep posting then?

Double Post:
I meant RacinReaver's post, actually. The part about 'crystal structure with a lattice constant of around 0.2866nm', and such.

Copying and pasting the same tired old shit doesn't give you logic. Nor does it make you look smart.

And don't yell at me about ignoring "logic" when you do the same yourself.

I like seeing retards run around in circles.

And I like a good train wreck.

You shouldn't look, but you keep on looking.

Circles huh? I think you've now cited me to RR same post a good 5 times now and still have no opinion of your own. You can't even point out what's so special there. If you paid any attention to my quotes you see I'm not worried about that 1300F figure he gives. Nor do I care for his logic of all of the fireproofing magically being blown off from plane impact. My quotes from experts completely contradict what a non-expert has to say.

Right, but two of the three quotes I have up there are from the official reports. They admit they have no proof of temperatures exceeding 600C (1112F). Further, FEMA states jet fuel fires are not enough to make a building collapse but the overall normal office fire is. Again, WTC2 only burned for 56 minutes.

What part of "I don't give a shit" do you have a problem with understanding.

What part of "I don't give a shit" do you have a problem with understanding.

What part of "I don't give a shit" do you have a problem with understanding.

I like seeing retards run around in circles. :)

I like ending stupidity.