Actually thermit....

[wildbilln864]

doesn't have to cut the steel beam! It only has to weaken it to the point where it looses it's ability to support it's load weight.
:hi:

Dr. Jones hypothesizes that maybe RDX or HDX was used or something else in combination along with thermit.


911 and American Empire is a very good read! Everyone should read it IMHO!

on edit: so much being said about thermit can or can't cut steel beams is irrelevant. Just sayin! :)

[SidDithers]

1. But wouldn't fire do the same thing?...

Weaken steel beams so they could no longer support the load? And we know there was fire, so why would we need thermite?

Sid

[rman]

2. fire doesn't get hot enough, thermite burns at 2000c (3600F)

Some people think the fires in the WTC were particularly hot because of the jet fuel - but fuel is essentially carbon and burns at a temperature comparable to wood and paper. The color of any material (including burning gas aka "fire") is directly proportional to its temperature regardless of the fuel; red = ~600c.
NIST concludes that at no time did any of the steel of the WTC get any hotter than 600c.
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/legge/PancakeTheoryFalseByNIST15.pdf

Thermite otoh cuts through steel like a warm knife through butter.

[LARED]

4. What is the strength of steel at 600 c?

compared to ambient temps.

[vincent_vega_lives]

86. Highest Temperature attained is irrelevant

Take energy transfer rate - heat dissipation rate * time = temperature of steel.

[rman]

3. deleted dupe

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. Because the fire had to be intense in very specific places

So yes the steel was weakened by 'fire' but the big question is what started the 'fire' in those specific places.

Both buildings, had very intense fires erupt right before the collapses in two of four corners on the first floors to fail.

Taking out these corners was crucial to taking down the buildings.

[LARED]

6. What specific places?

What do you mean what started the fires? You do know a jet hit the building created a huge fire that spread throughout the building. Yes?

I have a different view of the intense fires erupting right before the building collapse starts. The eruption was cause by the collapse. In the videos of the south tower collapse it is clear that the building moves and then the fires blow out the sides. Something not surprising in the least.

[nebula]

10. Exageration does not help your argument

The fire was contained and did not spread beyond the impact area.

A fire that burns for less than an hour on a couple of floors can not be described as 'HUGE,' by any stretch of the imagination.


And no steel-framed high-rise in history has ever collapsed due to fire.

[LARED]

29. Pathetic attempt to distract. (n/t)

[wildbilln864]

31. yet factual!

Deal with it!

[LARED]

38. Deal with this

My statement huge fire that spread throughout the building. is construed as an exaggeration, Yet Nebula's comment that The fire was contained and did not spread beyond the impact area. A fire that burns for less than an hour on a couple of floors can not be described as 'HUGE,' by any stretch of the imagination. is deemed factual.

It's pointless nitpicking by you and Nebula. The bottom line is that the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel. No amount of distraction or wishful CT fantasy is going to change those facts. Because they are facts.

[wildbilln864]

39. Dubious facts!

The fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel throughout the whole building! :eyes:
Especially building #7! That's a fact!

Your support of the PNAC CT doesn't change the facts!

[wildbilln864]

40. And praytell...

how did those fires cause steel to evaporate? :shrug:

[LARED]

42. You think steel evaporated as well?

Just for giggles, is there any evidence steel evaporated4d or are you just making stuff up?

[wildbilln864]

43. Yes you really should read up before you...

continue to show your lack of knowledge! I'm reffering to a New York Times article from November 29, 2001. You should enlighten yourself! :shrug:

LINK

[LARED]

41. You think the steel in the entire building needed to weaken to

collapse? Really? If true, get back to me when you get a better understanding of the subject.

[wildbilln864]

44. now you're just .....

blah blahing! I have no need to get back to you. :rofl:

I think there would not have been a complete and total collapse from fire alone! That's what I think! You can go with PNAC's CT if you wish!

[hack89]

50. With an open floor plan ,

what contained the fires? Assuming each impact zone encompassed three floors and extended to at least the center of each tower; each floor was aprox 30,000 square feet; and each was full of combustible material; just how was the fire contained? Spread thousands of gallons of jet fuel over large open office spaces and logic dictates large fires.

[DoYouEverWonder]

62. An open floor plan

doesn't mean that every floor was open office space.

It just means you can divide the floors up for assorted tenants with much greater flexibility. On floors with multiple tenants, the floor plans weren't 'open' at all and the walls in between would provide a certain amount of firewall protection.

[quickesst]

7. Absolutely brilliant!!

Everyone knows the heat from jet fuel is every bit as hot and destructive as a direct thermite charge. And while we're at it, why should cd experts spend all that money on expensive ordinance when they can just knock out a few places at the top of the building being demolished, load it with cheap kerosene, set it on fire, then wait an hour, and voila, a cheap, clean cd. Thanks.
quickesst

[wildbilln864]

8. Absolutely Quickesst....

Thanks!
Why do they need demolition experts and companies when all they really need is kerosene fire and a wrecking ball to smack the building with to make it collapse completely to the ground? :eyes:

The PNACCTers are so rediculous!

[nebula]

11. You should patent that idea

Why didn't I think of that? I could be very rich!

Kerosene, the same kind of fuel commonly used as charcoal lighter fluid for barbecuing or heating homes in winter, can now apparently be used to knock down modern skyscrapers in less than an hour.

All would be needed is get a couple of hundred gallons of kerosene from your local supermarket, pour it on a couple of floors, and VOILA, in less than an hour the entire structure should come collapsing down. Gee, why do demolition companies even bother with spending up to three months rigging a building with explosives for demolition, when it would take less than an hour to achieve the same results with kerosene!?

[Kingshakabobo]

63. Including the 40 million dollar airplane crash in your scheme....

......MIGHT be cost prohibitive. Also, the adjacent buildings (see:WT7)that would suffer extensive damage might have a problem with your scheme.

[wildbilln864]

66. Excuse me but you neglect the fact that WTC building # 6

was between the towers and #7! they weren't adjacent. I thought you knew that at least!? :eyes:

[Kingshakabobo]

67. Thanks for helping make my point.....

......The hair-brained scheme is MORE dangerous than I thought!

[Ezlivin]

68. You're right. Damage to WTC 7 caused it to collapse. But whoops! look at WTC 3

All that damned debris did was split the building in two. And the fires that raged didn't manage to cause it to pancake collapse.

It's just a damned pity that all the buildings weren't as well made as WTC 3, ain't it?

[Kingshakabobo]

69. Um, that's not what we were talking about.

I was merely point out haw asinine it (and the subsequent analogies on this thread) would be, due to damage of nearby structures, to use fires to bring down buildings.

But thanks for helping make my point.

BTW, what would have been left to collapse in WTC3?? It appears most of the building is gone. In other words, most of the collapsing is already done.

[Ezlivin]

70. WTC 3 didn't pancake collapse with severe structural damage and fires

We're told that "structural damage and fires" brought down WTC 7.

With far less visible damage, WTC 7 collapsed straight down, while WTC 3 just sustained incredible damage and the floors didn't collapse.

The face of the WTC 7 as it collapses is nearly unblemished and fire shows through only a handful of windows. What if it had been damaged like WTC 3 (giant chunks of falling steel smashing down through the center of the building)? Would it still have collapsed as we seen or would it have remained standing?

[Kingshakabobo]

72. It was ALREADY collapsed from the impacts.

What is your point again?

What was left to "pancake"???? Pancake implies a, somewhat at least, intact structure to collapse on itself.....doesn't it???

By your own posts, you point out that there were two totally different scenarios. One building split in two an the other one not split in two. One building with a structure left TO COLLAPSE and the other with.....???? A couple of "spires" left???

Why are we even discussing this? Why do I have to explain why you might expect two different outcomes from two different scenarios?????

Try this: one person, while driving a 4 door Buick, sustains a head on collision..... another person, driving a 2 door Honda, sustains a broad-side collision with ruptured gas tank............

Two totally different sets of injuries and damage to the cars. Does THAT imply a conspiracy?

Sheeesh.

Not to mention the difference in building design as well as the fact that WTC3 was, essentially, turned in to a convertible with its top down. Any "raging" fire heat would probably be vented to the atmosphere.

[Ezlivin]

73. It was collapsed?

Gee, it sure doesn't look collapsed. I see two halves of a building.

Try this on for size: Two steel-framed buildings sustained fire and structural damage. One fell straight down, the other didn't. Bonus points for explaining why the more severely damaged building didn't end up on the ground in a pile.



The NIST's own evaluation shows that WTC 7 sustained far less structural damage than WTC 3.

Now why did WTC 3 not collapse into a pile after sustaining damage equivalent to WTC 7? In other words, what made it more sturdy?

[vincent_vega_lives]

89. You forgot the fire

and the fact that WTC had a key limiting structural design.

[wildbilln864]

90. fire never...

has brought about the collapse of a steel framed skyscraper! And hasn't since! Yet on this day you seriously believe that it caused three skyscrapers to completely collapse? Do you really believe what the PNACers have told you!? Really" :rofl:

[vincent_vega_lives]

91. left out the damage this time.

Wow, this is a pretty stupid game. Or cant grasp more than a single thought at any one time?

[wildbilln864]

93. It's only a game to you I guess.

There wasn't enough damage on building #7 to cause a complete collapse! :eyes: Try again! Sorry about your inability to grasp multiple concepts simultaneously! :patriot:

[vincent_vega_lives]

94. You did it AGAIN!

Having fun? :freak:

The fire or the damage to WTC7 alone most likely would not have resulted in the collapse. You do realize that BOTH occurred to the SAME building at the SAME time....don't you?

[Ezlivin]

92. But the NIST says it's still interested in determining why WTC 7 fell

If it knew it was fire, why would it take this stance?

"NIST is interested in determining why and how the 47-story WTC 7 building, a more typical tall building, collapsed even though it was not directly hit by an aircraft."

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_keyfindings.htm

I imagine they've made great progress after 5 years of hard work, don't you? I guess that any day now they'll solve it for us. After all, they said they were interested.

Aren't we all?

[vincent_vega_lives]

88. WTC 7 was not constructed like WTC 3 (n/t)

[vincent_vega_lives]

87. Because it would be unsafe and unpredictable. (n/t)

[wildbilln864]

9. Fire indeed may do the same thing but....

there weren't enough fires in enough places to bring about a global collapse. And those fires were not hot enough nor did they burn long enough! They certainly didn't evaporate steel! :eyes:

[piobair]

12. amazing

You have come full circle from the fires weren't hot enough to melt steel so thermite had to have been used back to it only had to be hot enough to weaken the steel, something the fires caused by the jet fuel and building contents could easily do. Any one who says the fires were localized and containable isn't dealing with reality.

[nebula]

13. I think OCTers have created their own alternate reality

to suggest that the fire was anything but a limited one. It was not a towering inferno that engulfed the building as you seem to think. The fire was limited to the impact area and burned for less than an hour.

I don't know what you were smoking that day, but you have a very active imagination to call it a widespread fire.

As to thermite, I don't know if that was used. But no question some type of explosives were involved, probably dynamite at the least.

[piobair]

15. absolute bullshit

The flaming jet fuel went down elevator shafts starting multiple floors on fire. Are you saying that the fires were out when the towers collapsed? The folks making all of these thermite and other explosives claims just keep changing the theory when the previous idea proves unworkable. It would be nice if people who post theories about CD or fire behavior had at least a rudimentary knowledge of the subject instead of "just knowing".

[nebula]

18. How do you know that?

Kerosene poured down the elevator shaft and started additional fires?

Where is the evidence of that? Or are you beginning to confuse your own theories about 9/11 with reality?

Even if it were somehow true, how does kerosene manage to pour down an elevator shaft and then ignite all by itself after reaching the lower floors? And if this miracle kerosene did somehow ignite itself, the ensuing fire still only burned for less than an hour.

Not to mention the lower floors were never struck by a plane, so could not have had their 'fireproofing knocked off by the impact of the plane,' as the official story claimed for the impact floors.

:rofl:

Please, you're going to have to do a lot better than that.

[piobair]

21. Fireproofing

didn't need to be knocked off on the lower floors. The collapse started in the impact zone. You really are clueless.

[quickesst]

48. Would you please....

detail for us the construction of an elevator shaft. I've built quite a few of them, and when you obtain and share that information, it will shed new light on a subject the oct keeps repeating, I suppose, in the hope that the cters here will suffer daily bouts of amnesia, thus allowing the use of the "fuel down the elevator shaft, running out everywhere, on every floor, burning through one to two hour rated sheerock, weakening the steel beams" thingy once again. What you will find is an elevator shaft is built with one-inch thick shaftwall, interlocked with steel studs. There is another three and a half inch wall plus five-eighths sheetrock on the exterior of these shafts on every floor. All penetrations are sealed with fire proofing, with the exception of the actual elevator door. The construction surrounding the elevator door is sealed, thus giving the elevator shaft a four-hour fire rating. The next time you're in an elevator, think about what kind of force it would take to blow one of those doors off, much less two, three, etc. I would imagine the level of safeguards would be strictly maintained on a job the size of the WTC, as safeguards are strictly maintained on the smaller jobs I have been involved in. One hour, that is the minimum it would have taken fire to penetrate to the steel, with the exception of the impact areas. The only other exception might be vulnerability on some floors above the ceiling grid and tile. The fire would still have to travel up and over the one-hour rated sheetrock, and would only come in contact with the upper portion of the beam. I am making a guess here, but due to the size of these buildings, I would say the sheetrock and framing on most or all floors were taken to the deck. No matter how hard I push my imagination, I cannot see what the OCT believes happened, happening. I said in another post, it just seems silly. Thanks.
quickesst
quickesst

[piobair]

17. Does your reality

allow steel to burn and be its own fuel? Seems like I remember that this was your idea. You'll forgive me if I don't give your ideas much credibility.

[nebula]

19. You misunderstood what I said

I said that thermite could have caused the steel to melt. Steel does not ignite itself.

It would help if learned how to read.

[piobair]

22. No

You said, and it will be confirmed by others, that steel will burn and in fact burn for weeks using itself as its own fuel. These are your words.

[Kingshakabobo]

65. It's STUNNING that you would say that when a simple search reveals the truth....

You:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=130689#130950

The question is how long it takes for MOLTEN METAL to burn itself out. Thermite is only required to get the process of melted metal going, it is NOT the end product.

Have you ever seen molten metal in a foundry? Or molten lava in a volcano? That stuff could literally burn for weeks on its own energy!

You again (digging deeper):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=131711#131754


Obviously, the fuel of (any) molten steel is steel.

And if thermite was used, then that make two sources of fuel--thermite and steel.

Once you have molten steel, thermite is no longer needed. You can keep using steel beams to fuel the fire.

Again again (here you even provide us a definition of combustible so there is no confusion that you THINK steel is combustible):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=131711#131798

Combustible: a substance that can be burned to provide heat or power.

Steel can be a very combustible material, provided a sufficient heat source (ie: an active furnace, or thermite). It would then become quite combustible.


.........................
WOW!

[piobair]

83. How about a reply to post 65. n/t

[rman]

14. no

"there weren't enough fires in enough places"

Just weakening the steel in a few places would not have been enough to cause complete collapse - there was no fire in most of each tower. And it's very doubtful the steel was significantly weakened at all by the fires that were there.


"Radio recordings show the firefighters in the towers saying there were only two small pockets of fire and should be able to knock it out with two lines."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKdvl--1Dt0

How about you present some sources to back up your "reality"?

[piobair]

16. 600 degrees

is all you need to degrade steels strength by half. Since the majority of the fire was located in the area with the most impact damage, the fire didn't need to affect all of the steel. It was already carrying an increased load due to the damaged columns. The videos clearly show the collapse starting in the impact zones.

[nebula]

20. Again, how did kerosene that poured down

to the lower floors, manage to ignite itself??


and,

2) how did this amazing hour-long kerosene fire manage to weaken fire-proofed steel beams of the lower floors, floors that were beneath the impact area??

[piobair]

24. Kerosene was ignited

as it went down the shafts. There are many reports of elevator doors being blow open and deaths and serious injuries from people in the elevators being burned by the fuel.

I've already told you, the fire proofing didn't need to be knocked off on the lower floors because the collapse started at the impact zone.

[wildbilln864]

26. Indeed there are reports but...

they do not specifically show what caused these events! You're assuming aren't you? Where's the proof it was from the kerosene?

[piobair]

30. Survivors smelled kerosene

but even if it is an assumption it's a lot less of a stretch than the thermite crap.

[wildbilln864]

32. only in your opinion!

smelling kerosene doesn't prove anything!

[piobair]

33. It does when

your ass is on fire.

[wildbilln864]

35. There are also many reports...

of explosions before and after the impacts! Why are some reports more credible to you than others? Read about William Rodriguez. He was there! He has no reason to lie IMO!
Even if there was kerosene spilled down the shafts this still would not burn long enough to melt steel not to mention evaporate it! And no fuel spilled down the shafts at WTC #7!

[wildbilln864]

23. are you talking ...

celsius or farenheit? Your notions are completely at odds with other buildings which were not as strongly built and survived much longer fires and did not collapse! One I know of had the top portion collapse onto the lower part and it did not collapse after longer amd more intense fires than at WTCs!


edited 4 spelling!

[piobair]

25. Celsius and

how many off the other buildings had been hit by BA 757's?

[wildbilln864]

27. well let's see...

nothing hit #7, hmmm!

[piobair]

28. sorry

thought you were talking about 1 and 2.

[nebula]

34. Again, someone should patent this idea asap

They would become an overnight millionaire.


Ahh yes, kerosene fires that collapse entire steel-frame buildings. Something which normally takes months of rigging with explosives, can now be accomplished in less than an hour.


What a truly marvelous invention!

[piobair]

36. Just add a fully fueled 757 n/t

[nebula]

45. Except that the towers were designed to withstand impacts

of commercial airliners traveling into them, comparable in size to the 747. They did that because in 1945, a B-25 bomber crashed into the Empire State building in dense fog.

And a MIT researcher notes, "the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.”

[wildbilln864]

46. exactly!

:yourock:

[wildbilln864]

37. yes nebula...

It's laughable! :hi:

I must however disagree with the notion tht it would take months to rig it. Maybe so when safety precausions have to be considered. But they weren't! Maybe when the necessary papers had to be filed and permits granted! But they weren't!
Check here!

[nebula]

47. Yes. of course

Safety factors and other normal procedures didn't have to be taken into account.

Regardless of that, the perps had all the time they needed to rig the explosives. Considering they were in control of the WTC's security operations.

[wildbilln864]

49. anything is......

possible when you have the unlimited flow of unaccounted for tax dollars. 2.5 trillion unaccounted for at the pentagon the day before the attacks!? Too many suspicious facts IMHO! It really boggles my mind that they can get away with it this long. :shrug:

[nebula]

51. Someone should have informed NIST

about the amazing invention known as emergency fire sprinklers.


Didn't the WTC, like every other modern high-rise in the US, have sprinklers built into every floor? Hence, that explains why fires at the impact zones were quickly extinguished? Which is why only large billowing clouds of smoke, not flames, can be seen smoldering from the impact zone long before the collapse.

And this amazing technology known as an internal sprinkler system, would have quickly suppressed any other fires that could have started on the lower floors, long before they could do much damage to the rest of the building.

Hence, the idea that fire could have contributed in any way to the collapses would be good for a hearty laugh.

[piobair]

52. you really don't have a clue do you?

The NIST report has addressed the sprinkler question directly in terms even you can understand.
Both the NIST calculations and interviews with survivors and firefighters indicated that the aircraft impacts severed the water pipes that carried the water to the sprinkler systems. The sprinklers were not operating on the principal fire floors.

However, there were ample sources of the water in the stairwells. The water pipes ran vertically within the stairwells. Moreover, there would have been copious water from the broken restroom supply lines and from the water tanks that supplied the initial water for the sprinklers. Thus, it is not surprising that evacuating occupants encountered a lot of water.

Even if the automatic sprinklers had been operational, the sprinkler systems—which were installed in accordance with the prevailing fire safety code—were designed to suppress a fire that covered as much as 1,500 square feet on a given floor. This amount of coverage is capable of controlling almost all fires that are likely to occur in an office building. On Sept. 11, 2001, the jet-fuel ignited fires quickly spread over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower. This created infernos that could not have been suppressed even by an undamaged sprinkler system, much less one that had been appreciably degraded.

The previous 3 paragraphs are taken directly from the NIST faq site.
Maybe you should read a little before spewing forth.

[DoYouEverWonder]

53. 'The jet-fuel ignited fires quickly spread

over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower'.

The visual evidence does not support that statement.

In neither tower did even one whole floor become fully engaged in fire. Most of the vigorous fires only involved a single floor or a few floors on a single side of the building.

Some of the fires that erupted as a result of the plane crashes burnt themselves out before the collapse. Other fires started up much later in odd places. But there are only a couple of places in each tower, where fire was sustained from the time of impact to the time of collapse.

[piobair]

54. I was addressing Nebulas lame post about the fire sprinklers

We'll just have to disagree about the volume of fire since I think it was significantly more than you do.

[DoYouEverWonder]

55. The WTC was a sprinklered building

This system completely failed during the 1993 bombing. You would think they would have worked out the kinks in 8 years?

[Kingshakabobo]

85. Worked out the kinks?

Do you actually believe what you type? Please tell me you are ignoring logic just for the sake of argument.

What "kink" in the sprinkler system design should include a 200,000 pound aircraft, traveling @500mph, smashing in to the building?

[hack89]

58. How can you say that ..

when so little of the interior of the building was visible? You expect us to believe that burning jet fuel was sprayed over a large office space full of combustible material and it didn't catch fire?

[DoYouEverWonder]

60. "Full of combustible material"

You do realize that a fair bit of the space on the upper floors was empty? What is there to burn on an empty floor, or a floor that is mostly mechanical equipment?

[hack89]

61. The impact zones were occupied

research the fuel loading of a typical office space - there was plenty to burn.

[DoYouEverWonder]

64. Most of the space

in the impact zones was leased to one of two companies. In WTC1 - Marsh USA occupied the 93rd through 100th floor. In WTC 2, Fuji Bank occupied (79 - 82). That does not necessarily mean they both used all of that space. Some tenants may have had more space on paper then what they actually used, just to make the building look more fully occupied. Plus both companies have major ties to BushCo and I will defer to Dr. Debug's excellent work on their connections to 9-11.

However, in WTC1 fires erupted on the 90th - 93rs floors, which were below the impact zone. These floors appear not to have had many tenants. George Sleigh worked the American Bureau of Shipping on the 91st floor with about 22 other people. He claims they were the only tenants on that floor. According to a list of tenants. ABS had 8400 sq ft. on the 91st and 92nd floors). That leaves a lot of empty space on 91. 92 was relatively empty too. There's a listing for Suite #9221 that was for rent and was listed has 15,053 unfinished corner space. (I'd love to know which corner that was.)

[nebula]

56. I laughed a little

when I read the NIST claim that, "This created infernos that could not have been suppressed even by an undamaged sprinkler system, much less one that had been appreciably degraded."


That NIST statement contradicts all the visual evidence. There were no raging, out of control infernos. If there was an out of control fire, we would have seen raging fires and flames engulfing many floors far beyond the impact zone. No one saw any such thing. Magical, invisible flames not withstanding.

As indicated by the huge clouds of billowing smoke from the impact zone and the clear absence of flames, the significant fires were limited to the floors at the impact zone. And even those fires were highly localized, burning themselves out in less than an hour, well before the collapses even took place.

[hack89]

57. How could they be localized?

the WTC had an open floor plan and both planes penetrated into the center of the building. What physical obstacle was there to prevent an entire 40,000 square foot floor from burning? How can you look at the video and determine what was happening a hundred feet inside? You can't.

Something else to consider - those "huge clouds of billowing smoke". What is required to lift massive amounts of particulate matter miles into the sky for an hour? Energy right? And what was the source of that energy- fires right? The massive smoke plume that was visible from outer space was not the result of small localized fires.

[nebula]

59. The large billowing smoke

was the result primarily of the fireball explosion. The large fireball explosion when the planes hit were the only "raging fires," which lasted but a few moments.



Big billowing clouds of smoke and the absence of flames are an indication of a weak, oxygen-deprived fire that has run its course.

[DoYouEverWonder]

71. This is a picture of the towers from the WSW

Moments before WTC2 collapsed.



There are no floors WTC2 (or WTC1) at this point that are fully engaged in fire.

[nebula]

74. The Pentagon looked strikingly similar

They say a Boeing 757 loaded with fuel hit the Pentagon as well.

And yet hardly any fires there either. All you see is a smoldering black hole where whatever hit it, and no significant or raging fires.

[LARED]

75. No raging fires you say? Look here

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nebula]

77. Again, the photo shows the fire is limited to the impact zone

the fire is not out of control or raging. Otherwise we would have seen smoke clouds coming out of more floors, not just the impact floors.

In the most intense areas of the fire, people can be seen jumping out of the building to their deaths, apparently to avoid burning alive. But the fires are uneven burning,and last for less than hour (keep in mind the time between plane impact and building collapse < 1 hour). Hell, on some sides the impact zone, video footage shows people standing and waving to the camera.


An uneven burning, hour-long fire can not even come close to weaken structural steel beams to the point of total failure. At least not in this universe!

[piobair]

79. Please site some evidence other than your totally ununformed opinion as to why

the fires could not have weakened the steel. You have been exposed as a liar as to what you have said in previous posts and instead of responding to logical answers to your questions you continue to bounce from one unsupported opinion to another. Even Wildbillin had to pull your ass out of the fire regarding taking months to rig the WTC for CD. Your beginning to shake my belief in Darwin. I'm surprised you have survived.

[nebula]

81. Do you have anything other than your petty insults and temper tantrums

to contribute to this discussion?

Apparently not.


Watch thy temper!


:rofl:

[petgoat]

82. NIST has no core steel samples showing heating above 250 C nt

[wildbilln864]

78. Doesn't matter....

no fire has ecer caused a building to collapse! And hasn't since! :hi:

[piobair]

80. wtc 1,2,7 all collapsed due to fire and structural damage.

Try reading a book sometime.

[piobair]

84. "this science is amazing Sir Bedivere,

tell me again how rams bladders can be used to prevent earth quakes."

King arthur in Monty Pythons Search for thr Holy Grail