|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 28, 2005 23:03:36 GMT -4
No kidding. Having lost on all other fronts, AC 934 is now claiming that the falling debris couldn't have caused the fires in WTC 7, totally ignoring the fact that several other buildings were set on fire by falling debris at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 28, 2005 23:04:53 GMT -4
Oh, and he/she/it is still claiming that diesel isn't flamable and so couldn't have fueled the fires in WTC 7
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 29, 2005 3:39:02 GMT -4
Why were there molten pools of steel in the basements of WTC 1, 2 and 7. Thermal imaging from the USGS showed hot spots five days after 9/11 with temps of up to 1020K. How could this be the result of the fires?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 29, 2005 9:01:08 GMT -4
Oh, and he/she/it is still claiming that diesel isn't flamable and so couldn't have fueled the fires in WTC 7 Diesel fuel isn't explosive, but it is by all means flamable.
|
|
|
Post by ktesibios on Jun 29, 2005 23:14:54 GMT -4
Why were there molten pools of steel in the basements of WTC 1, 2 and 7. Thermal imaging from the USGS showed hot spots five days after 9/11 with temps of up to 1020K. How could this be the result of the fires? Quantities of flammable material, some of it already on fire, were carried down in the collapse and buried in the rubble. Pockets of flammable material can smolder at high temperatures underground for surprising lengths of time. A coal seam lying under the town of Centralia PA has been on fire since 1961, defying all efforts to extinguish it and forcing the evacuation of nearly the entire population. The account of the fire in the mines at Gold Hill NV in Dan De Quille's The Big Bonanza is another example. After six weeks of unsuccessful efforts to put out the fires, the sections of the Kentuck and Crown Point mines in which the fire was located were sealed off and the fire contained. De Quille writes "Nearly three years after the breaking out of the fire the rocks in the eight hundred foot levels of the Crown Point and Kentuck mines were found to be red-hot." These were hard-rock precious metals mines. The fuel for the fires was primarily the timbering of shafts and tunnels.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 30, 2005 1:22:26 GMT -4
Why were there molten pools of steel in the basements of WTC 1, 2 and 7. Thermal imaging from the USGS showed hot spots five days after 9/11 with temps of up to 1020K. How could this be the result of the fires? Quantities of flammable material, some of it already on fire, were carried down in the collapse and buried in the rubble. Pockets of flammable material can smolder at high temperatures underground for surprising lengths of time. A coal seam lying under the town of Centralia PA has been on fire since 1961, defying all efforts to extinguish it and forcing the evacuation of nearly the entire population. The account of the fire in the mines at Gold Hill NV in Dan De Quille's The Big Bonanza is another example. After six weeks of unsuccessful efforts to put out the fires, the sections of the Kentuck and Crown Point mines in which the fire was located were sealed off and the fire contained. De Quille writes "Nearly three years after the breaking out of the fire the rocks in the eight hundred foot levels of the Crown Point and Kentuck mines were found to be red-hot." These were hard-rock precious metals mines. The fuel for the fires was primarily the timbering of shafts and tunnels. It can happen, that fairly high temp fires can continue for extended lengths of time, but they are very uncommon, and even these examples did not produce molten steel, as normal fires could not do this. The odds of all three collapses in one day having high temps for long durations must be very high. The other thing is that these fires can not melt steel, yet all three building fires have molten steel in the basements. There has never been a case of normal fires causing melted steel, yet again all three buildings have this. Controlled tests of fires in steel framed buildings have never collapsed, let alone produce molten steel. The contents of the towers were standard office items and materials, nothing unusual to generate abnormally high temps. The fires in the WTC were not all consuming in any way, and were of standard temps. - the firefighters tapes released indicate the fires on the 87th floor were "a few small pockets", and "we can take them out with a couple of lines" (hoses). Nothing in the video or photographic evidence shows anything that would even indicate a possibility of a collapse, in one let alone three buildings. Again , as the firefighters tapes attest to, the fires were actually becoming less strong, as they were beginning to get the fires under control. The request for two lines to finish off the main area of fire came barely a minute before the communication was cut as the building collapsed. The firefighter was already on the 86th floor! There were no "hidden" infernos in the central core area or elevator shafts - again the tapes have one firefighter sending one elevator down to get help, and the others were either in use or out of commission, but not from becoming a "fire shaft". The videos and photos back up this contention as well. The smoke from the fires was mostly black soot, meaning they were dying off from lack of oxygen - of course, anyone who's put out a campfire knows that! There was no logical reason for near free fall collapse of these three buildings, all steel framed, all in one day, with first hand firefighter accounts of being manageable. They are trained to know if there is any signs of imminent structural failure - they were in the worst areas of the fire and would not have been caught unaware of any breakdown or stress fracturing.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 30, 2005 12:28:41 GMT -4
Firefighters are inded trained to recognize signals of structural collapse, and so on. Speaking as a volunteer FF, I would just point out that such signs can be misread, overlooked, or ignored (consciously or not) which is why we continue to lose FFs in building collapses.
And that's in houses and strip malls, which burn all the time. The situation is much more complicated in an enormous skyscraper with major structural damage inflicted at the start of the incident and thousands of frightened civilians trying to get the hell outta Dodge. Also, most of the structural damage FFs deal with is fire damage and water load, not structural trauma.
edit-add:Nor is the determination of a fire "under control" nearly as straigthforward as you seem to think. There are way too many fires where the fire is reported "knocked" in one area, while somewhere else it's bonfire time. Or the supposedly under-control fire comes alive again and chases the "victorious" crew out, or burns the house down a day after everyone's packed up and left.
I haven't read or heard any FF who thought the smoke was odd. It looked like a helluva lot of burning stuff, class A, B, and C combustibles all cooking away. But even if the fires were dying out, the damage had already been done.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 30, 2005 18:36:35 GMT -4
Firefighters are inded trained to recognize signals of structural collapse, and so on. Speaking as a volunteer FF, I would just point out that such signs can be misread, overlooked, or ignored (consciously or not) which is why we continue to lose FFs in building collapses. And that's in houses and strip malls, which burn all the time. The situation is much more complicated in an enormous skyscraper with major structural damage inflicted at the start of the incident and thousands of frightened civilians trying to get the hell outta Dodge. Also, most of the structural damage FFs deal with is fire damage and water load, not structural trauma. edit-add:Nor is the determination of a fire "under control" nearly as straigthforward as you seem to think. There are way too many fires where the fire is reported "knocked" in one area, while somewhere else it's bonfire time. Or the supposedly under-control fire comes alive again and chases the "victorious" crew out, or burns the house down a day after everyone's packed up and left. I haven't read or heard any FF who thought the smoke was odd. It looked like a helluva lot of burning stuff, class A, B, and C combustibles all cooking away. But even if the fires were dying out, the damage had already been done. The photos and videos certainly seem to back up the FF tapes though. And remember, the fires were only going for about 1 hour in WTC 2 before it collapsed and 1:45 before WTC 1 collapsed. The fires causing the complete almost free fall collapse of both towers and molten steel in the basement, is beyond the scope of possibilities, given these circumstances. There is no visual evidence to support the contention that fires weakend the towers in under two hours to the point of complete and near instantaneous structural failure on every single floor, support column, central core, crossbraces, and so on. The "pancake theory" is based on incomplete and incorrect analysis of the WTC structures. The buildings collapsed nearly free-fall via the "path of MOST resistance", which defies the laws of physics.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jun 30, 2005 20:03:57 GMT -4
The fires causing the complete almost free fall collapse of both towers and molten steel in the basement, is beyond the scope of possibilities, given these circumstances. There is no visual evidence to support the contention that fires weakend the towers in under two hours to the point of complete and near instantaneous structural failure on every single floor, support column, central core, crossbraces, and so on. The "pancake theory" is based on incomplete and incorrect analysis of the WTC structures. The buildings collapsed nearly free-fall via the "path of MOST resistance", which defies the laws of physics. Hi turbonium My understanding is that the structure of the WTC towers relied on the support of the skin of the building, the core of the building, and the steel beams which connected the skin and the core. In each case, the aircraft impact destroyed much of the support on one side of the building. The remaining structures could just support the building, but the steel beams were weakened by the heat of the fire. The beams failed well below the melting temperature of the steel, because the steel quickly loses structural strength as temperature increases. Therefore, once the remaining steel beams had been weakened, they simply couldn't keep the core and skin connected, and this caused that section of the building to collapse. Once that started, there was no way it was going to stop.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 30, 2005 20:54:15 GMT -4
The photos and videos certainly seem to back up the FF tapes though. And remember, the fires were only going for about 1 hour in WTC 2 before it collapsed and 1:45 before WTC 1 collapsed. The fires causing the complete almost free fall collapse of both towers and molten steel in the basement, is beyond the scope of possibilities, given these circumstances. There is no visual evidence to support the contention that fires weakend the towers in under two hours to the point of complete and near instantaneous structural failure on every single floor, support column, central core, crossbraces, and so on. The "pancake theory" is based on incomplete and incorrect analysis of the WTC structures. The buildings collapsed nearly free-fall via the "path of MOST resistance", which defies the laws of physics. If you think there is no evidence to support the popularily accepted explanation for the WTC collapse, you should take a critical look at the various demolition theories. Talk about not being supported by evidence! I have to laugh every time I hear these stories. For instance, you say the "near free-fall" collapse of the towers defies the laws of physics. Why would a demolition be any different? How can a demolition be made to defy these same laws of physics, and what evidence is there this is how it was done?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 1, 2005 9:32:08 GMT -4
turbonium, you seem to think that pretty much everything holding up the WTC 1 and 2 towers above a certain point had to be destroyed before they collapsed. That's not so. Unfortunately, quite a bit of detailed discussion on this topic was lost with the previous incarnation of this board, but basically local failures lead quickly to general failure. Damaged pieces weren't able to absorb load from other damaged pieces, and intact members were unable to sustain loads of magnitudes and types far beyond their design points. What you had then was a big piledriver imparting truly fantastic shock loads leading to instantaneous failure of structures below.
I'm not a structural engineer, but it makes sense to me. It's a far more reasonable explanation, even with holes here and there in our understanding, than any other explanation - in particular, than the "demolition" claim, which is all hole.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 4, 2005 2:28:18 GMT -4
I was just watching a story about the collaspe of a natural rock formation in Australia. The formation, one of the Twelve Apostles, was said to have "cracked apart and then toppled straight down onto its base." I guess it must really have been a controlled demolition.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2005 9:20:30 GMT -4
The photos and videos certainly seem to back up the FF tapes though. And remember, the fires were only going for about 1 hour in WTC 2 before it collapsed and 1:45 before WTC 1 collapsed. The fires causing the complete almost free fall collapse of both towers and molten steel in the basement, is beyond the scope of possibilities, given these circumstances. There is no visual evidence to support the contention that fires weakend the towers in under two hours to the point of complete and near instantaneous structural failure on every single floor, support column, central core, crossbraces, and so on. The "pancake theory" is based on incomplete and incorrect analysis of the WTC structures. The buildings collapsed nearly free-fall via the "path of MOST resistance", which defies the laws of physics. If you think there is no evidence to support the popularily accepted explanation for the WTC collapse, you should take a critical look at the various demolition theories. Talk about not being supported by evidence! I have to laugh every time I hear these stories. For instance, you say the "near free-fall" collapse of the towers defies the laws of physics. Why would a demolition be any different? How can a demolition be made to defy these same laws of physics, and what evidence is there this is how it was done? Law for falling bodies. Neglecting air resistance, bodies of all masses accelerate downwards at the same rate. Controlled demos don't defy this law because all resistance is removed at the time of collapse. But the towers each had 200,000 tons of steel, 425,000 cubic yards of concrete, walls, furniture, etc. to provide resistance. Yet they fell in almost free fall time....
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 5, 2005 10:36:06 GMT -4
Controlled demos don't defy this law because all resistance is removed at the time of collapse. Hogwash! For all resistant to have been removed the entire structure would have had to been essentially pulverised in place with the resulting particles free-falling to the ground. Show me video evidence where this was done. But the towers each had 200,000 tons of steel, 425,000 cubic yards of concrete, walls, furniture, etc. to provide resistance. What we see in the video are upper floors impacting stationary lower floors. This will offer resistance regardless of what caused the collapse. Yet they fell in almost free fall time.... I think the demolition advocates have some further explaining to do. Their hypothesis does not reconcile this alleged anomaly.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2005 13:33:41 GMT -4
Controlled demos don't defy this law because all resistance is removed at the time of collapse. Hogwash! For all resistant to have been removed the entire structure would have had to been essentially pulverised in place with the resulting particles free-falling to the ground. Show me video evidence where this was done. What we see in the video are upper floors impacting stationary lower floors. This will offer resistance regardless of what caused the collapse. Yet they fell in almost free fall time.... I think the demolition advocates have some further explaining to do. Their hypothesis does not reconcile this alleged anomaly. Then where is the resistance in the towers collapsing? (Since they fell at not much over 11-12 seconds) Check this clip and explain how this collapse is from fires and the plane impact...note how quickly the top section collapses, after first tilting to one side!.. www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/--=Close-up%20of%20south%20tower%20collapse.mpgAnd why was there molten steel in all three basements? Reconcile that without explosives being used...
|
|