Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
- Thread starter kazakhan
- Start date
it is estimated that the aircraft had approx. 10,000 gallons of fuel each
-fema403_ch2.pdf
and concerning allegations that a passport could not survive this fire:
for example life jackets and portions of seats from the aircraft were found on the roof of the bankers trust building. part of the landing gear was found 5 blocks away
-fema403_ch2.pdf
it is assumed that 1,000 to 3,000 gallons of jet fuel was consumed in the initial fireball
-fema403_ch2.pdf
it is assumed that all of the jet fuel was consumed within the first few minutes of the fire
-fema403_ch2.pdf
modeling suggests a peak total rate of fire energy output on the order of 3-5 trillion btu/hr
around 1-1.5 gigawatts
1/2 to 1/3 of this energy went into the smoke plume
-fema403_ch2.pdf
modeling also suggests a ceiling temperature of 900c to 1100c
-fema403_ch2.pdf
and concerning allegations that a passport could not survive this fire:
for example life jackets and portions of seats from the aircraft were found on the roof of the bankers trust building. part of the landing gear was found 5 blocks away
-fema403_ch2.pdf
it is assumed that 1,000 to 3,000 gallons of jet fuel was consumed in the initial fireball
-fema403_ch2.pdf
it is assumed that all of the jet fuel was consumed within the first few minutes of the fire
-fema403_ch2.pdf
modeling suggests a peak total rate of fire energy output on the order of 3-5 trillion btu/hr
around 1-1.5 gigawatts
1/2 to 1/3 of this energy went into the smoke plume
-fema403_ch2.pdf
modeling also suggests a ceiling temperature of 900c to 1100c
Anomalous said:
Well it was a pretty big building. Biggest in the world, no? And set alight by jet fuel, then backed up with tons of burning material from the building itself.
Question: was the steel grade uniform? Could it have been lower grade higher up? After all, it doesn't have to take as much weight there.
Geoff
GeoffP said:
She could've at least included the concerns of time exposure at that temperature, and ASTM certifications and so forth.
In hindsight my math was dubious in the sense that jetfuel was not the only fuel. However, it would have been impossible for the flame to reach temperatures to heat the steel to 500C. Most of the flame's energy goes into the smoke and into the environment, the energy will never transfer straight to the steel and it was incomplete combustion too.
Regardless, consider this;
The steel where the fire raged was near the top, 85th floor (25 from top)? It had to support a constant weight.
But the steel at the bottom of the building had to support a weight that equaled at least 4 times what the steel at the fire had to support, plus it wasn't weakened by a fire in any way. I would imagine those wouldn't be broken at all, because by the time the collapse had reached the bottom, everything had slightly radiated outwards so those supports had to deal with less weight.
Although, the building had fallen in on itself at freefall speeds, according to some mathies doing my job, I doubt there was enough kinetics to trouble the steel at the bottom. Curiously too, the supports at the bottom had collapsed just as fast as the supports near the top, so they were either weakened too, or not built properly. And I doubt they had a construction flaw.
Regardless, consider this;
The steel where the fire raged was near the top, 85th floor (25 from top)? It had to support a constant weight.
But the steel at the bottom of the building had to support a weight that equaled at least 4 times what the steel at the fire had to support, plus it wasn't weakened by a fire in any way. I would imagine those wouldn't be broken at all, because by the time the collapse had reached the bottom, everything had slightly radiated outwards so those supports had to deal with less weight.
Although, the building had fallen in on itself at freefall speeds, according to some mathies doing my job, I doubt there was enough kinetics to trouble the steel at the bottom. Curiously too, the supports at the bottom had collapsed just as fast as the supports near the top, so they were either weakened too, or not built properly. And I doubt they had a construction flaw.
Again, temperatures of more than 500 degrees are quite common. Your ordinary matchstick burns at 1700 degrees, IIRC. Regarding the incomplete combustion, the smoke will itself ignite once it reaches its flashpoint - gas explosions are common in building fire. The smoke seen on the pictures will be the incomplete combustion of the peripheral areas. The central areas will be much hotter, and will burn better. Also, when smoke goes out, air gets in, fanning the flames. It would have been very, very hot in there.
Then there's the supports: The structural loads are quite different from the impulse loads generated. The moment of half a WTC tower is not something it could have been built to withstand.
I simply don't see the evidence as convincing. And then, of course, there's the issue of motive. No, I don't buy it.
Then there's the supports: The structural loads are quite different from the impulse loads generated. The moment of half a WTC tower is not something it could have been built to withstand.
I simply don't see the evidence as convincing. And then, of course, there's the issue of motive. No, I don't buy it.
I find the collapse of WTC 7 very interesting and the cause of collapse is still largely "unknown" to FEMA as well as to everyone else.
Another Question: Was the plane in Penn. brought down by valiant passengers? Or was it shot down by a military aircraft? Didn't Rumsfeld slip at the mouth one time and say it was shot down? I believe so.
"During his surprise Christmas Eve trip to Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the flight being shot down..."
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112
I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories like the fake moon landings, etc. I don't buy into that shit. But there are still many many inconsistencies with this whole story of 9/11. Like some of the supposed hijackers are still alive, etc. I just find it interesting. Though I could not imagine the US government as having a role in this. This kind of thing would have required a rather large number of people who are in on it and I couldn't imagine something like that being kept silent for so long.
AHHHHH!
Another Question: Was the plane in Penn. brought down by valiant passengers? Or was it shot down by a military aircraft? Didn't Rumsfeld slip at the mouth one time and say it was shot down? I believe so.
"During his surprise Christmas Eve trip to Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the flight being shot down..."
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112
I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories like the fake moon landings, etc. I don't buy into that shit. But there are still many many inconsistencies with this whole story of 9/11. Like some of the supposed hijackers are still alive, etc. I just find it interesting. Though I could not imagine the US government as having a role in this. This kind of thing would have required a rather large number of people who are in on it and I couldn't imagine something like that being kept silent for so long.
AHHHHH!
mercaptan said:
Evidently, you and the other people who want to take his remarks as the U.S. having shot down the plane have a pretty bad problem with reading comprehension. Here's a short excerpt (nothing pertinent left out, either) of what he said:
"... or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten..."
Now I ask you - where in all that is there ANY reference to ANY action taken by the U.S.?????????????
leopold99 said:
I had read it, but I didn't exactly elaborate on what I meant. In order to heat steel to such temperatures, you need a certain amount of energy. And A flame of 1000C is not going to heat the metal to 1000C because not all of its energy is transferred.
Hence, the flame needs to be hotter than what you're intending on heating the steel at.