|
Post by gwiz on Apr 6, 2007 5:45:09 GMT -4
The WTCs were planned to survive a 707 that's low on fuel, and finding a runway, likely lost in fog, going at about 200 knots.I want to see the official reference made by the WTC leading engineers about that allegation. www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument(If you want the figures as well as the text, you'll have to download the pdf of the entire issue)
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 6, 2007 7:02:08 GMT -4
Except that there wasn't melted steel. That's just a rumor. The steel wasn't melted, it was merely weakened. "Just a rumor"? Sorry, but it needs to be said - that's the weakest argument I've ever heard regarding this issue. There is considerable evidence supporting the argument that steel melted. Numerous photos, videos, first-hand eyewitness accounts, and - most significant - physical evidence. That anyone would attempt to dismiss the cumulative evidence (which continues to amass) as nothing more than "a rumor" amazes me. Instead of citing evidence that steel melted on this thread, I think it's a good idea that I start a new thread to specifically address this issue. Btw, is it your contention that no metal(s) whatsoever melted, or just that none of the steel did? I said... I also find WTC 7's method of collapse not possible without explosives. Over 5 years later, no plausible explanation has been put forward for fire/damage alone being able to cause this collapse. Yet another rumor/myth. And explaination does exist. IIRC, Fires were started from falling, burning debris. It ignites fuel from the tanks of the emergency diesels. Solid fuel fires also start (inevitable in a building with office supplies). The fire rages for hours. The temperature difference leads to a deformation in the steel frame, which eventually causes structural failure. Thus, collapse. Now, what is unbelievable about any of that? Aside from your errors regarding "solid fuel" and "temperature difference", which sts60 has already pointed out..... To once again shrug off a significant issue - this time regarding the WTC 7 "official" collapse theory (or is it theories?), as nothing but "rumor/myth", is utter nonsense. As for your summary of the "official" theory... "Fires were started from falling, burning debris" This is the commonly assumed cause of initial fires inside WTC 7. Imo, there is no solid evidence for this theory of fire initiation, and I still find it suspicious. But, since I've seen no solid evidence to make a sound argument for foul play, I'll continue to "accept" the 'burning debris' theory. "It ignites fuel from the tanks of the emergency diesels."An entirely unsubstantiated assertion, once again. NIST's last published report regarding this issue goes no further than to speculate..... The two 6,000 gallon tanks supplying the 5th floor generators through a pressurized piping system were always kept full for emergencies and were full that day. Both tanks were found to be damaged by debris and empty several months after the collapse. Some fuel contamination was found in the gravel below the tanks and sand below the slab on which the tanks were mounted, but no contamination was found in the organic marine silt/clay layer underneath. This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5.wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf (page 38) So, they found evidence of fuel leaking out of the tanks - in the gravel below the tanks, and in the sand below the slab that the tanks were mounted on. But since they didn't find any evidence of fuel even further below - in the "organic marine silt/clay" (ie: river mud) - they suggest the possibility that some fuel may have ignited, thus developing fires on the 5th floor. Of course, none of the debris from WTC 7 was even recovered for analysis, so if the unaccounted for fuel leaked into the buiding elsewhere, those materials can never be tested for contaminants. "The fire rages for hours." "Rages"? These are buildings which have raging fires.... WTC 7 had a few sporadic fires, which we have seen in the photos. There is absolutely no valid evidence of a fire in WTC 7 that "rages for hours". "The temperature difference leads to a deformation in the steel frame, which eventually causes structural failure. Thus, collapse."Yet again, a claim with no valid evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Apr 6, 2007 8:33:36 GMT -4
First off Turbonium, the only "nitpick" about my use of the term solid fuel was that its often used to refer to what rockets use in the world of engineering (at least for aerospace engineers, I assume). That doesn't mean I was in error. Poor reach on your part.
Now, where is the evidence of melted steel? Stuff you read on CT sites? Rumors that have worked their way in the (un)common mind? Show me your evidence. Show me a photo of melted steel, pools of liquid metal, and so forth. So far, the closest I've seen was some steel beams that are glowing red hot. Not the same as melted steel.
Regarding a raging fire... Appearances are not always a good indication of intensity. The fires were internal, often obscured by smoke and the windows.
No solid evidence, huh? Then I assume you ignore the witnesses that saw the burning debris crash on WTC 7 when the Twin Towers collapsed?
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Apr 6, 2007 9:21:13 GMT -4
These are buildings which have raging fires.... WTC 7 had a few sporadic fires, which we have seen in the photos. There is absolutely no valid evidence of a fire in WTC 7 that "rages for hours". Little problem with using those pictures Turbo, the first one was taken at night and the second one was taken either at night or in low light (the lit windows wouldn't be visible in daylight), the difference in conditions makes the fires in them far more visible than in pictures taken during the day (eg all of those taken of WTCs 1, 2 and 7 on September 11th).
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 6, 2007 9:21:15 GMT -4
It is also well know that High Rise Skyscrapper are build to be 5 time more resistant than necessary.
Handwaving. This may be "well-known" in the imaginations of conspiracists, but in the real world the issues of safety factors and redundancy are very complex. The best estimates of some MIT structural engineers are that the core columns of the WTC were loaded at about 1/3 of their capacity before the impact.
However, even granting for the sake of argument that your assertion is correct, a safety factor of five would mean the structure was five times as strong as required under ordinary conditions and normal loads. The calculation that the building could withstand the impact of a 707 would have included the safety factor.
Further, I stated that the kinetic energy of the 767s was at least five times as great as planned for. United 175 was flying significantly faster than American 11, (dangerously so, in fact, though obviously the hijackers didn't care), so its kinetic energy was higher. My estimate is very conservative.
You mean that the ball of fire was more bigger with a full tank. The intensity of the fires is caused by the amount of burning material initiated by the explosion of the kerosene which is limited by the amount of office furnitures and the nature of the material used in that furnitures. Right?
Begging the question that the additional jet fuel was merely overkill. Because there was so much fuel, the fires started out much larger and spread much more quickly than they would have in the 707 scenario. Had the fires started out much smaller, they might well have been able to have been contained by firefighters. Also, the much larger initial fires would have led to structural weakening simultaneously in much larger areas of the buildings.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 6, 2007 9:56:34 GMT -4
Little problem with using those pictures Turbo, the first one was taken at night and the second one was taken either at night or in low light (the lit windows wouldn't be visible in daylight), the difference in conditions makes the fires in them far more visible than in pictures taken during the day (eg all of those taken of WTCs 1, 2 and 7 on September 11th). the 38-story Meridian Bank Building(right picture), also known as One Meridian Plaza, It was the largest high-rise office building fire in modern American history -- completely consuming eight floors of the building -- www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza.htmlA fire on the 22nd floor of the 38-story Meridian Bank Building, also known as One Meridian Plaza, was reported to the Philadelphia Fire Department on February 23, 1991 at approximately 2040 hours and burned for more than 19 hours. The fire caused three firefighter fatalities and injuries to 24 firefighters. The 12-alarms brought 51 engine companies, 15 ladder companies, 11 specialized units, and over 300 firefighters to the scene. It was the largest high-rise office building fire in modern American history -- completely consuming eight floors of the building -- and was controlled only when it reached a floor that was protected by automatic sprinklers. A table summarizing the key aspects of the fire is presented on the following pages. www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza.htmlother fires 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Apr 6, 2007 10:01:50 GMT -4
Little problem with using those pictures Turbo, the first one was taken at night and the second one was taken either at night or in low light (the lit windows wouldn't be visible in daylight), the difference in conditions makes the fires in them far more visible than in pictures taken during the day (eg all of those taken of WTCs 1, 2 and 7 on September 11th). the 38-story Meridian Bank Building, also known as One Meridian Plaza, It was the largest high-rise office building fire in modern American history -- completely consuming eight floors of the building -- www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza.htmlA fire on the 22nd floor of the 38-story Meridian Bank Building, also known as One Meridian Plaza, was reported to the Philadelphia Fire Department on February 23, 1991 at approximately 2040 hours and burned for more than 19 hours. The fire caused three firefighter fatalities and injuries to 24 firefighters. The 12-alarms brought 51 engine companies, 15 ladder companies, 11 specialized units, and over 300 firefighters to the scene. It was the largest high-rise office building fire in modern American history -- completely consuming eight floors of the building -- and was controlled only when it reached a floor that was protected by automatic sprinklers. A table summarizing the key aspects of the fire is presented on the following pages. www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza.htmlSo how does that relate to my point that glowy bright flames are more visible at night than in the day? All of which were taken at night, find some taken in the day that are as visible and I'll take notice.
|
|
|
Post by donnieb on Apr 6, 2007 10:10:57 GMT -4
Oh I get the point all right, the Kader toy factory fire had it's own little cover up. The factory was shoddily built had no sprinkler system, no insulation, no fire standards were in place on top of the fact that the buildings were full of combustibles and exploited Disney slaves. Is the fact that steel was a component the only bloody thing you have here.? Ah, I see. So a steel-framed building can collapse due to fire if it has no sprinklers, its steel members have no insulation, and it's full of burning material. Let's see now: WTC had sprinklers? Yes, except the standpipes were cut by the impacts, so they weren't functional. No sprinklers: check. WTC had insulated steel? Yes, except the explosive impact blew it all off in the area the airplanes penetrated. No insulation: check. WTC had no combustible material? Right, the smoke and flames we saw that day were just holographic projections. Major fires: check. Well gosh, 3onthetree, seems like all your criteria were met! What's more, the buildings had taken major structural damage from the impacts, cutting that static load margin way down even without the fires. So what's the big objection? Even your own arguments say the WTC towers should have collapsed!
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 6, 2007 10:16:02 GMT -4
the 38-story Meridian Bank Building, also known as One Meridian Plaza, It was the largest high-rise office building fire in modern American history -- completely consuming eight floors of the building -- www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza.htmlA fire on the 22nd floor of the 38-story Meridian Bank Building, also known as One Meridian Plaza, was reported to the Philadelphia Fire Department on February 23, 1991 at approximately 2040 hours and burned for more than 19 hours. The fire caused three firefighter fatalities and injuries to 24 firefighters. The 12-alarms brought 51 engine companies, 15 ladder companies, 11 specialized units, and over 300 firefighters to the scene. It was the largest high-rise office building fire in modern American history -- completely consuming eight floors of the building -- and was controlled only when it reached a floor that was protected by automatic sprinklers. A table summarizing the key aspects of the fire is presented on the following pages. www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza.htmlother fires 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.htmlSo how does that relate to my point that glowy bright flames are more visible at night than in the day? Yes, flames are more visibles at night .But you seem insinuate that the fires in those high rise skyscrappers were not really more intense than the fires in WTCs.Which is a false allegation.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 6, 2007 10:20:56 GMT -4
Oh I get the point all right, the Kader toy factory fire had it's own little cover up. The factory was shoddily built had no sprinkler system, no insulation, no fire standards were in place on top of the fact that the buildings were full of combustibles and exploited Disney slaves. Is the fact that steel was a component the only bloody thing you have here.? Ah, I see. So a steel-framed building can collapse due to fire if it has no sprinklers, its steel members have no insulation, and it's full of burning material. Let's see now: WTC had sprinklers? Yes, except the standpipes were cut by the impacts, so they weren't functional. No sprinklers: check. WTC had insulated steel? Yes, except the explosive impact blew it all off in the area the airplanes penetrated. No insulation: check. WTC had no combustible material? Right, the smoke and flames we saw that day were just holographic projections. Major fires: check. Well gosh, 3onthetree, seems like all your criteria were met! What's more, the buildings had taken major structural damage from the impacts, cutting that static load margin way down even without the fires. So what's the big objection? Even your own arguments say the WTC towers should have collapsed! Cough,cough! Fire tests carried out in the 1990's at the Building Research Establishment test facilityat Cardington in Bedfordshire, UK showed that the performance of whole buildings can exceed theperformance of its parts. An 8-story closed test structure was subjected to atmospheric temperaturesof 1200˚C (2192˚F), causing unprotected steel beams to eventually reach internal temperatures over1100˚C (2012˚F). This caused deformations in some of the steel but no structural collapse took place.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 6, 2007 10:58:09 GMT -4
Ah, I see. So a steel-framed building can collapse due to fire if it has no sprinklers, its steel members have no insulation, and it's full of burning material. Let's see now: WTC had sprinklers? Yes, except the standpipes were cut by the impacts, so they weren't functional. No sprinklers: check. WTC had insulated steel? Yes, except the explosive impact blew it all off in the area the airplanes penetrated. No insulation: check. WTC had no combustible material? Right, the smoke and flames we saw that day were just holographic projections. Major fires: check. Well gosh, 3onthetree, seems like all your criteria were met! What's more, the buildings had taken major structural damage from the impacts, cutting that static load margin way down even without the fires. So what's the big objection? Even your own arguments say the WTC towers should have collapsed! Cough,cough! Fire tests carried out in the 1990's at the Building Research Establishment test facilityat Cardington in Bedfordshire, UK showed that the performance of whole buildings can exceed theperformance of its parts. An 8-story closed test structure was subjected to atmospheric temperaturesof 1200˚C (2192˚F), causing unprotected steel beams to eventually reach internal temperatures over1100˚C (2012˚F). This caused deformations in some of the steel but no structural collapse took place.Thanks for saving me some typing Donnie yes all feelfree’s objections to the Thai fire apply to WTC as well including his silly complaint that the FD got stuck in traffic. Uuuuh, there was no firefighting at the WTC except for a minimal effort at 7 WTC happered by a lack of water. Toy factory didn’t have 100 ton jets fly into it or have thousands of gallons of accerant dumped into it. The Sight and Sound Theater fire is also instructive like the WTC it used spray on fireproofing and had a long truss roof not to different from the floors of the WTC: From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ] 1. www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf As for the Cardington tests the operative word in the phrase below is ‘can’: “the performance of whole buildings can exceed the performance of its parts” IIRC the test structure was of standard column and beam “honeycomb” construction rather than one with large open spaces spanned by thin trusses.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 6, 2007 11:01:11 GMT -4
Yes, flames are more visibles at night .But you seem insinuate that the fires in those high rise skyscrappers were not really more intense than the fires in WTCs.Which is a false allegation. So do you have any evidence other than nocturnal photos to back your claim? None of these buildings had pre-fire structural dammage to their frames and fireproofing
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 6, 2007 11:14:54 GMT -4
John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but “the building structure would still be there.”The 707 and the 767 do indeed have similar zero-fuel weights. However, the speed limit for aircraft operating near the World Trade Center was (and still is) 200 kts. Also, the 707 analysis presumed that the aircraft would only have had a few thousand pounds of fuel aboard. The 767s that struck the WTC 1 and WTC 2 were traveling at at least 400 kts, and had large quantities of fuel remaining. So they were traveling at least twice as fast, with a mass about 25% greater than expected, which means their kinetic energy was at least five times as great as planned for, and the fires were much worse. Feelfree last time you posted the above I replied Spitfire actually underestimated the speed differences approach spped for a 707 is 180 mph (290 kph) flight 11 was flying between 430 and 490 mph (690 - 780 kph) and flight 175 at 590 mph (940 kph).. So feelfree if a crash test had shown that the occupants of a particular model car should survive a crash at 18 mph and there was a crash at 43 of 59 mph and the people inside were killed, would you find that suspicious? What if they were killed by a combination of their inguries and the resulting fire and not the crash alone?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 6, 2007 11:20:16 GMT -4
Little problem with using those pictures Turbo, the first one was taken at night and the second one was taken either at night or in low light (the lit windows wouldn't be visible in daylight), the difference in conditions makes the fires in them far more visible than in pictures taken during the day (eg all of those taken of WTCs 1, 2 and 7 on September 11th). Daytime fires (including the fires in WTC 1,2 and 7) are quite visible, as well. Two other examples below... There are countless other examples. Night-time fires - flames of bright light - certainly do stand out in stark contrast to the surrounding darkness, compared to how those same fires would appear in daylight That's not in dispute. But even if the Madrid fire had occurred in bright daylight, it would still have looked like a gigantic torch in photos, and to the outside observers. And the First Interstate Bank fires in daylight would still be seen and visible in photos. Both buildings would still have visibly "raging" fires, even under a clear blue sky. And WTC 7 would still show the same scattered, small fires on a few floors, if it had occurred in the darkness of night-time. Fires - like Madrid - are indeed a greater spectacle because of that contrast.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Apr 6, 2007 11:21:38 GMT -4
So how does that relate to my point that glowy bright flames are more visible at night than in the day? Yes, flames are more visibles at night .But you seem insinuate that the fires in those high rise skyscrappers were not really more intense than the fires in WTCs.Which is a false allegation. What evidence do you have that they were more intense than the fires in the WTCs? The fact that there are lots of visible flames in those pictures can easily be explained by the lack of ambient lighting rather than the fires being more intense. Also the sheer size of the WTCs means that there could easily have been far bigger fires than were visible (not that the visible ones were small, there is at least one pic showing flames coming out of several floors across an entire side of one of the towers) just far enough inside the building to not be easily seen from the windows.
|
|