[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Aug 18 2006, 03:59 AM, said:

Every expert is in agreement that the jet fuel fire simply could not have been hot enough to melt steel - jet fuel cannot burn that hot.  What caused the collections of pooled liquid metals found?

I have very little experience with structural engineering (I used to spend some time on the math behind crack propagation, but that's far and removed from this type of discussion). However, I have a fair amount of experience with blacksmithing and heating/melting iron...

I'd like to point out one simple fact: The heat at which a fuel burns can be affected by the amount of oxygen available. The first thing that you learn about smithing is how to set up your forge to get good air-flow and proper combustion. I ruined a fair number of projects when a piece of iron caught on fire because I had too much air going through the coke.

From what I understand, the WTC had a fair number of tall open tubes. If any of those started working as a chimney and starting drawing large amounts of air through the fire, this could have impacted the temperature at which the fire was burning. In theory, you might have even gotten something similar to a thermite reaction even in the absence of large amounts of Iron Oxide... (Wikipedia discussed so-called "thermal lances" which burn using this same principle),. i doubt that random chance would give anywhere near the efficiency of the safecracking version, but there is something to be said for sheer volume.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Aug 17 2006, 08:40 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 18 2006, 03:59 AM, said:

Every expert is in agreement that the jet fuel fire simply could not have been hot enough to melt steel - jet fuel cannot burn that hot.  What caused the collections of pooled liquid metals found?

I have very little experience with structural engineering (I used to some work on the math behind crack propagation, but that's far and removed from this type of discussion). However, I have a fair amount of experience with blacksmithing and heating/melting iron...

I'd like to point out one simple fact: The heat at which a fuel burns can be affected by the amount of oxygen available. The first thing that you learn about smithing is how to set up your forge to get good air-flow and proper combustion. I ruined a fair number of projects when a piece of iron caught on fire because I had too much air going through the coke.

From what I understand, the WTC had a fair number of tall open tubes. If any of those started working as a chimney and starting drawing large amounts of air through the fire, this could have impacted the temperature at which the fire was burning. In theory, you might have even gotten some form of thermite reaction even in the absence of large amounts of Iron Oxide...

Very interesting what you say about thermite reaction - an article I read mentioned just this possibility but in the lab could not reproduce the effect. (I don't remember why)

As for heat, all I have read says that the maximum temperature of this fire could not have exceeded 1000 degrees F and it requires 1500 degrees F to melt steel.
This is even the official version. The question then is what caused the pools of molten metal that were found?

I am not debating this issue - not my point. It was simply so startling that I felt it worth the effort encourage others to "check it out for yourself", as I didn't even know there was a controversy about the collapse, and I had never heard that a third building, totally unexplained to my knowledge, also collapsed.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Aug 18 2006, 05:16 AM, said:

As for heat, all I have read says that the maximum temperature of this fire could not have exceeded 1000 degrees F and it requires 1500 degrees F to melt steel. This is even the official version. The question then is what caused the pools of molten metal that were found?

The following site is a representative example of a WTC "skeptic" site
http://www.whatreall...om/thermite.htm

Note that it makes very similar comments to the ones the Winston brings up

"In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons such as jet fuel burning in air is 1520° F (825° C). When the World Trade Center collapsed the deeply buried fires would have been deprived of oxygen and their temperatures would have significantly decreased."

I suggested something similar to a thermal lance as one possible explanation for the molten steel... (Note, I'm pulling this out of my butt). I have no idea whether or not this would be practical, however, I will note that the temperatures generated by this type of effect are well over 3000 degrees...

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Aug 17 2006, 09:48 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 18 2006, 05:16 AM, said:

As for heat, all I have read says that the maximum temperature of this fire could not have exceeded 1000 degrees F and it requires 1500 degrees F to melt steel.  This is even the official version.  The question then is what caused the pools of molten metal that were found?

The following site is a representative example of a WTC "skeptic" site
http://www.whatreall...om/thermite.htm

Note that it makes very similar comments to the ones the Winston brings up

"In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons such as jet fuel burning in air is 1520° F (825° C). When the World Trade Center collapsed the deeply buried fires would have been deprived of oxygen and their temperatures would have significantly decreased."

I suggested something similar to a thermal lance as one possible explanation for the molten steel... (Note, I'm pulling this out of my butt). I have no idea whether or not this would be practical, however, I will note that the temperatures generated by this type of effect are well over 3000 degrees...

I appreciate the nomenclature "skeptic" site. I'm not into conspiracy idiocy, but healthy skepticism at times is warranted.

Like I said - I didn't even know there was a controversy - so for those like myself I thought it sufficiently troubling to bring it to others' attention.

Here is one site I found interesting: http://www.physics.b...nergy/htm7.html

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Aug 17 2006, 09:16 PM, said:

As for heat, all I have read says that the maximum temperature of this fire could not have exceeded 1000 degrees F and it requires 1500 degrees F to melt steel.
This is even the official version. The question then is what caused the pools of molten metal that were found?

Arrrgh...first you say that no molten steel was found (the only molten metal found was not steel), then you talk about molten steel over and over again. There's lots of metals out there, some of which melt at temperatures a lot lower than steel.

I pointed out, Hrothgar pointed out, the steel wouldn't melt, it would burn. He even points out that with just coke and a chimney effect you can burn steel. So why are you so hung up....

Never mind. You're not listening, so I'll stop talking.

[DrTodd13]

To show I really do look at both sides, one conspiracy theories believes that demolition charges were placed at many of the upper floors of WTC 1 & 2 so that when the time came, the demolition could be started and would not appear too conspicuous. After all, you don't have that much fine control over which floors of the WTC would be hit. This theory seems quite unbelievable though not impossible. This makes me think that the conspiracy explanation is not very good either.

Would someone on the anti-agnostic side care to comment about the pulling of WTC 7? I haven't heard any reaction to that comment.

[kenrexford]

Here's what I think happened. I think the explosives were, in fact, placed inside the WTC. However, the plan was to blow up the WTC if a car bomb was set off in the basement. The airplanes would be enough without bringing it down.

However, the planes and the resulting fire triggered the explosives by accident. Thus, although Bush intended to blow up the WTC himself, this time it was an accident. You see, Bush cannot do anything right. To expect that he could pull off this explosion plot effectively is asking too much. He had to have messed up somehow, right?

[Al_U_Card]

Strangely, we were at work watching the live network feed that morning and I watched the 2nd plane impact the 2nd tower. Was that faked live as well? Were the charges only set off 45 min later when that tower collapsed first?

What a crock....but a fun crock.

[hotShot]

Have you ever seen a blacksmith working with iron?

It's not liquid, it's solid but can be formed. Steel and even concret change when they get really hot. Both loose their strength. Even normal furniture will cause temperatures of 1000°C when burning. The only reason houses don't collapse regularly is that the fires are usually not burning long enough to get the heat into the structure. Burning jet fuel will reach similar temperatures, and burning long enough will weaken a buildings structure.
Steel looses its strength at about 800°C.
Now think about the enourmous weight such a building has, when the steel starts to weaken the building will collapse. A collapse of that size will cause a lokal earthquake, surely strong enough to damage buildings.

Even bright people can talk nonsence, especially if asked the wrong questions.

[DrTodd13]

hotShot, on Aug 18 2006, 11:52 AM, said:

Have you ever seen a blacksmith working with iron?

It's not liquid, it's solid but can be formed. Steel and even concret change when they get really hot. Both loose their strength. Even normal furniture will cause temperatures of 1000°C when burning. The only reason houses don't collapse regularly is that the fires are usually not burning long enough to get the heat into the structure. Burning jet fuel will reach similar temperatures, and burning long enough will weaken a buildings structure.
Steel looses its strength at about 800°C.
Now think about the enourmous weight such a building has, when the steel starts to weaken the building will collapse. A collapse of that size will cause a lokal earthquake, surely strong enough to damage buildings.

Even bright people can talk nonsence, especially if asked the wrong questions.

Steel loses _SOME_ of its strength when heated to 1000 degress. It does not lose all of its strength. From what I have heard (which again is second hand evidence which is pretty much all of us are operating on), WTC 1 & 2 were around 4 times stronger than they needed to be to support their own weight in the presence of no wind. I have also been told that the steel used in these buildings loses about 50% of its strength at temperatures of 1000 degrees. Not all the supporting columns were subjected to these temperatures and even if they were, it still seems like you would still have 2x the load carrying capacity you needed. Like I said before, the winds were pretty calm that day so from these numbers it seems like it should have stayed up so either the 4x number is wrong, the 50% strength reduction number at 1000 degrees is wrong, there was a lot of wind, or the fire was hotter.

Prima facie, it sounds like nonsense to believe the buildings' collapse caused an earthquake that so damaged a building hundreds of feet away that it was in dangero of collapse while not causing irreperable damage to another similar building closer to the epicenter. They bring down big buildings all the time, some of them right into their own footprint less than a hundred feet from other buildings. These buildings can handle magnitude 5 or 6 earthquakes at least and isn't it pretty difficult to stand during such an earthquake. I don't recall any reports of anybody falling down due to shaking earth when the buildings collapsed. If there are reports of this I'd love to hear them.

[hrothgar]

Todd, i don't think anyone here is a structural engineer If anyone is, I doubt that they were involved in researching/writing any of reports in question.

Its all fine and dandy if you want to nitpick these reports, however, I have no interest in learning a new technical discipline just to provide you with a debate partner...

[EricK]

DrTodd13, on Aug 18 2006, 05:11 PM, said:

Would someone on the anti-agnostic side care to comment about the pulling of WTC 7? I haven't heard any reaction to that comment.

I think it is pretty likely from seeing the lead up to the Silverstein quote that he was talking about pulling the remaining firefighters out of the building to prevent any more needless loss of life.

Anyway, if the plan was already in place to blow up this building (and it would have to have been if there were explosives already in place) then why would he have had to tell people to "pull it"?

[hotShot]

Fire have caused buildings (burning long enough) to collapse for ages and will cause their collapse in future. And don't forget that a plane crashed into the building with about 500mph and will have ripped more than half of the static structure away. Look how deep the pentagon was penetrated by the third plane.

Standing next to the street you can feel a truck 40t just rolling past you.
The WTC is supposted to have a weigth some 500000 t (each tower), hammering to the ground.

If you insist on a conspiracy, have fun with it.

[DrTodd13]

I'm not insisting on a conspiracy. I'm saying that none of us have any reason to have 100% confidence in any given explanation. Don't sit here and quote me chapter and verse about orthodoxy and then when I simply ask a question say you don't have to defend your position because you're not an expert. If all you have to go on is that somebody with "authority" issued a report and told you what the official explanation is then basically what you are saying is that you believe something because you were told it. We all saw the planes hit the buildings and thus that is the most obvious explanation but there are a few curious oddities that have made some scientists question whether we are receiving the whole story. I've never seen such anger directed at people who are agnostic about something.

Earthquake info regarding WTC collapse.

By the way, why would he have said "pull IT" if he were talking about firefighters. Why wouldn't he have said "pull them."

[Winstonm]

jtfanclub, on Aug 17 2006, 11:42 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 17 2006, 09:16 PM, said:

As for heat, all I have read says that the maximum temperature of this fire could not have exceeded 1000 degrees F and it requires 1500 degrees F to melt steel.
This is even the official version.  The question then is what caused the pools of molten metal that were found?

Arrrgh...first you say that no molten steel was found (the only molten metal found was not steel), then you talk about molten steel over and over again. There's lots of metals out there, some of which melt at temperatures a lot lower than steel.

I pointed out, Hrothgar pointed out, the steel wouldn't melt, it would burn. He even points out that with just coke and a chimney effect you can burn steel. So why are you so hung up....

Never mind. You're not listening, so I'll stop talking.

I'm afraid you are not reading - I have never stated I believe this a conspiracy - all I've said is basically this: "Did you know there was this much controversy and did you know a third building went down?"

I then pointed out that some people much brighter, much more educated, and much better researched than me doubt the official version.

And you are right in that I probably did mix up the difference in the pools of metal found and a picture of a solidified piece - which is why I only touched on some of the ideas and suggested to anyone interested to simply research it himself.

Seems odd to me that even bringing up the idea that others question the official story brings out so much animosity.

Here is something you might want to look at, just to see what all the hullabaloo is about. It is a video of WTC 7 going down - there are obvious puffs of smokelike material coming from the sides before the building collapsed - and before you tell me this was from the floors interiors collapsing, watch the video. These puffs went up the building, not down. http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flash...west_corner.htm

There is also this interesting comparison video: http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/Ita...teshow-WTC7.wmv

[hotShot]

Engineers said that the Titanic would not sink, but they did not expect anyone using an iceberg as a can opener.
I don't think engineers thought about airplanes crushing into the building, and they didn't design the fire distinguisher to hande 50 tons of burning fuel.
I also bet nobody designed the static of the sorounding buildings to withstand the effect the towers impact to the ground might cause.
I doubt that even experts really know what happend, because they don't have the neccessary scientific data. Any studies made of planes hitting houses, had in mind that the pilot would try to avoid it. Nobody seriuosly studied what 50 tons of burning fuel would do to a skyscraper, because nobody expected that someone would put it inside. And nobody was thinking about the shockwaves caused by a collapsing 500.000 ton building.
So even experts are sort of guessing here. And allthough a fire is not smart, it is acting multidisciplinary. So expertise in kinetics, static, chemistry and engenieering is needed gain a little understanding of what happend.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Did you know there was this much controversy and did you know a third building went down?"

In that order: No and yes. In Europe I have heard nothing of the crackpot controversy and yes, I knew a third building went down.

Quote

Seems odd to me that even bringing up the idea that others question the official story brings out so much animosity.

Well I'm sure it wouldn't if the alternative would not be so ridiculous. Who is paying people to come up with stuff like this? Chris Carter?

Any "open" questions about the buildings going down are not solved because no one cared to answer them carefully. The FEMA don't answer because they don't care enough, the conspiracy theorists don't answer since they like their own answer better.

I am sure if you employ me (or someone else for that matter) for the time I need to find out the scenario I can build you a nice simulation of the collapse including all the details you don't understand and in the conspiracy theory are explained by controlled collapse. But no one wants to spend that money.

Physics is terribly badly understood by most. Most Hollywood movies involving space or anything technological include errors that would make any physicist wince. And suddenly when the scenario is not likely but happened anyway we need crazy theories.

Be sceptical but just saying "ahh it's very unlikely that it's natural" and say "cannot be from natural causes" without bothering to look for explanations is not science.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Engineers said that the Titanic would not sink, but they did not expect anyone using an iceberg as a can opener.

Good point.

Quote

I don't think engineers thought about airplanes crushing into the building, and they didn't design the fire distinguisher to hande 50 tons of burning fuel.

Supposedly not true - I am only relaying read info. Supposedly the WTC towers had been designed to withstand the impact of a airliner crashing into them. The jet fuel is probably accurate.

Quote

So even experts are sort of guessing here.

So it seems. The reasonable people I have read call only for a thorough investigation and a re-opening of case instead of guessing haphazardly. To me, with this much doubt it makes sense - especially as the ramifications of this one event have so dramatically affected the path of U.S. history.

My problem is that even if only a .00005% chance that something unsavory occurred that was in someway staged to produce a "louder" than expected horror show in order to engage in War on Terror, then it leaves me with too much doubt.

I remember Nixon vehemently denying that the U.S. had ever bombed Cambodia and no troops had crossed that border. I also remember Kent State where the National guard opened fire and killed U.S. college students. And I remember the Chicago Democratic convention where unarmed protest marchers were clubbed unmercifully into submission by the Chicago police department. These were all official acts by our government against our own citizens.

Yes, I want to know what happened. But I'm not about to simply accept the "official" version without reservation when this much doubt is cast by seemingly smart people.

Where would the U.S. be now if two reporters had not asked: "Why were CIA types breaking into Watergate - and then relentlessly followed up there own question?"

[mike777]

I was a very young Hippie(sort of) at that Chicago convention, you do not quite tell the full story. but yes it was a police riot but not totally unprovoked at times.

It was silly to have a secret war in Cambodia rather than just tell the full truth with no apology as Regan often would. I guess it was in the nature of Nixon to act that way in many things.

[kenrexford]

Perhaps it was simply the hand of Allah?