« Tattoo you... | Main | Reality Damaged... »

March 30, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Truth Seeker

First of all, if you're going to compare those puny beams to the ones that help up skyscrapers the joke is on you.

Second of all, yes fire can weaken steel. But the WTC buildings fell without resistance which means all the beams would have had to give at the exact same moment. Seems pretty difficult for a random fire to evenly disperse temperatures on all the beams in the building in order for them to fail simultaneously.

But you don't even have to get that scientific. There are plenty of smoking guns like the people caught waving from the holes created by the planes.

Yeah maybe steel can start to weaken at 230 degrees celsius, but the last time I checked humans can't survive those temperatures.

In terms of Fahrenheit that is 446 degrees!

The point where it only retains 10% of it's strength is at 750 degrees celsius which would equate to 1,382 degrees Fahrenheit!

If the fires really were evenly dispersed enough to weaken those beams simultaneously those people waving would have been burned alive.

Truth Seeker

First of all, if you're going to compare those puny beams to the ones that help up skyscrapers the joke is on you.

Second of all, yes fire can weaken steel. But the WTC buildings fell without resistance which means all the beams would have had to give at the exact same moment. Seems pretty difficult for a random fire to evenly disperse temperatures on all the beams in the building in order for them to fail simultaneously.

But you don't even have to get that scientific. There are plenty of smoking guns like the people caught waving from the holes created by the planes.

Yeah maybe steel can start to weaken at 230 degrees celsius, but the last time I checked humans can't survive those temperatures.

In terms of Fahrenheit that is 446 degrees!

The point where it only retains 10% of it's strength is at 750 degrees celsius which would equate to 1,382 degrees Fahrenheit!

If the fires really were evenly dispersed enough to weaken those beams simultaneously those people waving would have been burned alive.

El oh El At the guy above

"First of all, if you're going to compare those puny beams to the ones that help up skyscrapers the joke is on you."

First of all, if you're going to imply that the properties of steel change when you add more of it, the joke is on you. It's people like this who are uneducated, that go around parroting misinformation to the public.

"Second of all, yes fire can weaken steel. But the WTC buildings fell without resistance which means all the beams would have had to give at the exact same moment."

Where on earth did you get this information? "Fell without resistance?" What kind of GED toting theorist told you this? Of course there was resistance, but there wasn't enough to keep it up.

There was a big hole in the tower, that's what caused it to collapse. The steel that remained, was significantly weakened by the heat. As demonstrated above, steel does not have to liquify in order to weaken.

You are trying to pass off this notion that there were 100% of the steel girders available, while talking about a hole that people were waving out of. This is just mind boggling to me. remove 50% or more of a building's support structure, weaken the rest, and you have a recipe for collapse.

Contrary to what you and people like you parrot, the theory is not that the entire building crumbled simultaneously. It's that the part above the hole, collapsed into the part below the hole. The rest was pure momentum. No need to melt all the steel beams in the thing. Just destroy enough of the ones in the middle and the whole thing will collapse on itself, and due to the kinds of forces involved at that point nothing will remain.

It is very sad that you guys are arguing against a straw man that a jet explosion "consumed" the towers, when that wasn't what was said at all. It cut through them like a hot knife, and the towers did the rest.

toomuchtime

It is nearly impossible to accurately search fire impact on structures on the web without coming accross all the information that 'truth' seekers plaster on the web. For once, I would like these people to actually read or do research in fire design before posting these ridiculous claims on how structures behave in fire. Rosie o donnell is the farthest person from knowing the true behaviour of structures in fire. Heres a grand idea, sign up for a reseacrh degree and test your theories. Beyond this Fire engineering as a whole is a young research field where people cannot 'accurately' predict the full structural behaviour of a building in fire (yet). The events of 911, windsor tower, the china builing recently and many other structures are constantly eductating people. The problem comes in when people talk conspiracy and dont use facts. they plaster one building collapsing and another not, when these are very different buildings. Or in Rosie's case steel doesnt need to melt to collapse a building. Im sorry for the rant but im just tired of reading people pass conspiracies off as facts with no grounds or actual eveidence to what they are saying.

Daniel

Jet fuel Open air burning temperatures :287.5 °C (549.5 °F) Thats not anywhere near the temperature at 10 minutes you have in your table. Also fire does not continue to get hotter and hotter with the same fuel after its reached its peak temperature. You have to use a different fuel that burns hotter to get it to continue heating up. Your table is not evidence in this conversation.

Rusty

Yes, a different fuel was used - whatever (and whoever) was inside the building, initially at the point of impact, and then eventually wherever the fire spread. Another point that must be taken into account is that the structural members that failed were load bearing and need only have been weakened to the point of initial failure.

allergy doctor

Steel can start to weaken at 230 degrees celsius, a human cannot survive that temperature!

Luke Hamilton

Chris Stratton

Who knows at what point the weakened steel will fail to support the weight above it? Is it 25%? 50%? Anyone? Anyone? How many beams were compromised and/or removed all together from the impact itself? If you think none well then you failed physics obviously. Knock out 10% of the beams, bend another 10% to the point of uselessness, weaken the 80% left another to 75% of their nominal strength and you only have 60% original stength left to support the floors above. It is not enough to consider only how hot; but how long. Steel deforms more over time at the same temperature. If the beam bends the forces are no longer transmitted where they are supposed to be. It doesn't matter how strong a beam is if it isn't in the right direction and shape. Despite the size those buildings were constructed with amazing low tolerances (size deviation) for a reason.

Would you drive your car if you knew it was 40% weaker than it was yesterday? Would you expect it to perform the same? If you got in an accident and it folded in half would you be surprised knowing it no longer posses the strength it was designed with? Same with the buildings. Grow up, sure the government lies but use some common sense would you? What difference would it have made if the buildings collapsed or not? None, the people who supported war would have still supported war with or without the towers. What was in them is of not of such consequence to the US government that they would risk exposure at this level.

Chris Stratton

Quote from Luke Hamilton:

"Steel can start to weaken at 230 degrees celsius, a human cannot survive that temperature!"

So what? What does that prove? Are you so blinded by the desire to find something wrong that you have lost all common sense? That must be the only explanation as to why you cannot reason that a person standing 20 feet away from a fire burning at 500c is not being exposed to the heat? Have you ever stood close to an open fire? Open fires can reach 900c or so yet you can stand just feet away from it comfortably. You know why? Its call thermal conductivity. This single topic along spans many college semesters yet you seem to have it grasped at - if an object is near a fire - regardless of distance or vertical plane location - that object will immediately (or almost immediatley? How long aye buddy?) rise to meet the temperature of the nearby - or no so near by - fire - resulting in an immediately bursting into flames. If this does not happen then the government did it!

Yeah, that's some well researched and impressively kindergarten level logical there. Humans burn in fires. If the human is there, then there is no fire. That is what you are saying. By your logic the temperature is immaterial. You are saying that since there is a person on the same floor; there cannot be a high temp area - high enough to weaken steel. Is it that if there is a person there, the temperature cannot be hot enough to compromise steel? The two events are mutually exclusive within a given radius. I see!! I got it!

Wow. That statement - repeated so often - proves absolutely nothing - wait, I take that back - it proves nothing other than the person saying it is really, really dumb. I mean super stupid.

I have to remind myself that the average IQ is 100. That means unfortunately at least half of the folks that I am so privileged to deal with on a daily basis posses a 100 or below. Basically I'm interacting with orangutans and neanderthals half the day. Like right now actually...

Aj

Wtc 7 and the madrid building both fell due to fire but How they both fell are totally different. The madrid building burned for 3 days without collapsing... Wtc had several small fires and collapses within hours.. And I'm the nut job?

Bundy

http://www.news.com.au/technology/were-twin-towers-felled-by-chemical-blasts/story-e6frfro0-1226143261174

This would explain the greater heat needed to weaken the support beams.

Daniel

Government lies...I like the videos where the news anchors are reporting 7 as falling but is still visible in the back drop...lol

Winifred Boyle

We cannot just simply generalize that Government lies. We all know that in some countries they do have made different programs that are for the improvement of people's living condition.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

Important Info

Feeds

New Covenant



  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from imagoarticulus. Make your own badge here.