The Twin Towers Collapse

[Lewis]

Yes sir, I read it.

It completely ignores the fact that a fire of less than 500 degrees can cause structural steel 6" thick to melt and run like water.

This building can straight down at free fall speed.

Please tell me you understand these two statements.


It would be much much more realistic to say that supernatural forces caused building 7 to come straight down, than to suggest that a "fire" from across the street brought it down just like the first two.


JLB

There were a lot of factors including that massive gash, extending approximately 10 stories which you can see in this photo.
Research has shown that steel begins to weaken at approximately 570 degrees Fahrenheit

 

[JLB]

The Popular Mechanics investigation included information from various professional sources, including NIST, the American Institute of Steel Construction, a NYC Deputy Fire Chief, structural engineers from the University of California, and others. Their findings provide what I think is compelling testimony. Why should we not believe them?

Did there findings include an explanation of how the third building, which was not struck by an airplane, could fall into itself at free fall speed, the same exact way the other 2 did,yet with no impact of a plane or jet fuel enhanced fire?

Do honestly really believe any fire of any kind can burn hot enough to melt structural steel.

 

[JLB]

There were a lot of factors including that massive gash, extending approximately 10 stories which you can see in this photo.
Research has shown that steel begins to weaken at approximately 570 degrees Fahrenheit

Would you describe this beam as being "weakened" from a fire?

 

[Lewis]

You keep talking abut melting steel, I am not talking about melting steel, I am talking about weakened steel.

 

[JLB]

You keep talking abut melting steel, I am not talking about melting steel, I am talking about weakened steel.

From the last post I made, #23 please tell me where I mentioned "melted".

Here it is again -

Would you describe this beam as being "weakened" from a fire?


JLB

 

[Mike S]

Did there findings include an explanation of how the third building, which was not struck by an airplane, could fall into itself at free fall speed, the same exact way the other 2 did,yet with no impact of a plane or jet fuel enhanced fire?

Do honestly really believe any fire of any kind can burn hot enough to melt structural steel.

It isn't necessary to melt structural steel for it to lose its load-bearing strength. Here is what was included in the investigation:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/#wtc7
"I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

 

[Lewis]

From the last post I made, #23 please tell me where I mentioned "melted".

Here it is again -

Would you describe this beam as being "weakened" from a fire?


JLB

I would need a close up and personal inspection of the beam as well as a sample for testing. That picture does nothing for me

 

[JLB]

It isn't necessary to melt structural steel for it to lose its load-bearing strength. Here is what was included in the investigation:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/#wtc7
"I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety.


This quote should be enough for any person who is honestly looking for answers to see that something besides the "fire" caused the buildings that were hit and the building that wasn't hit to all fall in on itself in the same manner and speed.

The sheared off precision angle of the beam with molten steel that had run down the sides should be a dead give away.


JLB

 

[JLB]

I would need a close up and personal inspection of the beam as well as a sample for testing. That picture does nothing for me

I'll take that as a no.

 

[Corn Pop]

When theres something strange. Who ya gonna call. Mythbusters.

 

[Lewis]

When theres something strange. Who ya gonna call. Mythbusters.

 

[Lewis]

I'll take that as a no.

Correct

 

[jasonc]

Cutting explosives in demolition are placed where they are going to be effective.they strip buildings first then demolish them. Dynamite is a cutting not a blasting explosive tnt blasts ,c4 cuts.you can use dynamite to fall trees.so how many would have to ignore those placement of dynamite while on they way up to work?

 

[Lewis]

Do you think that George Bush reacted properly ? Well I do.