A 9-11 Conspiracy

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

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

I'm actually curious, what does the melting point of steel have to do with mechanical faliure?

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

I'm actually curious, what does the melting point of steel have to do with mechanical faliure?

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowable. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

-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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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).

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Fresh Frank

You closed the case just then, Mr. Non-Prepubescent-Grammar-Kid. Thanks for that.

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

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

the steel was just sitting there failing.

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

Quote:

Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)

Quote:

"The large quantity of jet fuel carried by each aircraft ignited upon impact into each building. A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact. The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings."

-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]

FELIPE NO

Did you even understand a quarter of what RR said.

I have my money on "no."

So why are you still posting.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

oh u no

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Merv Burger

Did you even understand a quarter of what RR said.

I have my money on "no."

So why are you still posting.

Do you need to see it again?

Quote:

Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

-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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

It is you who is not comprehending here, pal.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Phil

It is you who is not comprehending here, pal.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Aardark

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

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.



What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Phil

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.

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Merv Burger

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Merv Burger

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

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

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Phil

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

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

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Phil

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Aardark

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

I like seeing retards run around in circles.

And I like a good train wreck.

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

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

You also seem to forget some of your "experts" might have their own agendas. We are talking about people here.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Phil

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.

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.

FELIPE NO

I like seeing retards run around in circles.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Phil

I like seeing retards run around in circles.

I like ending stupidity.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

God damnit, accidentally his back and lost the whole post I had written. It's going to be a bit more concise this time, I guess.

I was curious about this article the professor you seem to have copy and pasted most of your arguments from. After a bit of googling (his in-text citations weren't exactly the best) I was able to find the article he refers to. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf

His use of elipses and boldface font really do help his argument out.

Let's take a look one of those lines I saw particularly interesting when viewed with the rest of NIST's response.

Quote:

Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)

So there's what he cited. But, perhaps conveniently, he left out the last part of that bullet.

Quote:

NIST 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.

I'd also like to note that his page citation is incorrect, the previous paragraph actually occurrs at the bottom of page 88 of the report and nowhere else. Most certainly not page 176/177, though they do have some stuff I'll hit later

And, let's look at the paragraph following that one.

Quote:

These results were for a very small fraction of the steel in the impact and fire zones. Nonetheless, these analyses indicated some zones within WTC 1 where the computer simulations should not, and did not, predict highly elevated steel temperatures.

(emphasis mine, obviously)

Oh my, what's this? Finding that those beams weren't really hot actually reinforces their predictions. Guess leaving parts of paragraphs out is a really good tactic.

Quote:

Further, FEMA states jet fuel fires are not enough to make a building collapse but the overall normal office fire is.

Well, let's see why they say about that (pardon any typos, the FEMA document doesn't allow copy+pasting).

Quote:

However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings. The heat output from these fires is estimated to have been comparable to the power produced by a large commercial power generating station. Over a period of many minutes, this heat induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakending these frames. This additional loading and the resulting damage were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

As any person worth their salt that deals with materials knows, pure temperature alone isn't enough, time is crucial as well.

Oh, and as for your MIT professor, might want to read what he had to say in context as well.

Quote:

Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.


http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

He also decides to comment on the 'implosion issue' you're talking about.

Quote:

It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

So, yeah, please check your facts next time.

Also, lollin' at how the guy you're copying the original argument from doesn't even have support from anyone in the civil/structural at his own university.

Edit: Screw you guys for ruining the thread even more and making styphon close it. >=(

There's nowhere I can't reach.