Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

[beachnut]

Even if all energy of the fuel was used for the first floor then it would only reach 255 degrees celsius, that's not much for only one floor

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

Calculations proved wrong just by observation. Got to love it.

Kind of sad, WTC was sagging, you know, it looks like something made the building sag. Was it the heat?

WTC failed, there were no explosives, did the steel mess up and not read your posted calculations?

My Doltish smart remarks aside, an observable failure due just to fire and building contents. No extra fuel, no extra impact energy.

The building in Madrid steel only sections could not of failed and since there was no fuel, the steel of the Madrid building is still standing? NOT

See how the steel is sagging and deforming just in a building fire. By the way the central portion of this building is with concrete, a good insulator, keeps heat away from steel for a long time.

Look closely, the steel only portions are gone, in just a few hours. Above steel sections are failing, and below they are fallen.

Just a note, the building is too weak to keep. Due to fire. Your post calculations are missing something. Bet some people here actually have the real models to help understand why fires can do this.
50 percent of the top section, the steel section is gone, the concrete is there. 3 little pigs will use concrete in their next building!!!

Even though proved wrong by events, the calculation did have the 315 tons of TNT as the energy in the 10,000 gallons of fuel (1,320,000,000,000 Joules). Neat when a CT source has good numbers. Bad when they have bad models.

What would your posted model say about the Madrid building with no extra fuel? Would it say the steel would not fail? Your post calculations would mean no building's steel would ever be comprimised.

Check out how many of the CT examples of fires in high rises are still standing? (3 out of 5)

Some good numbers, wrong model? Who calculated this stuff?

But since the building actually buckled and deformed, I think this guy is not a scientist. The NIST information is taken out of context.

 

[progressquest]

I am concerned that no one has mentioned the MOLTEN STEEL that you can see inside the building. Clearly the factory was brought down by thermite (mate?, mite? moot? I don't know...).

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I am concerned that no one has mentioned the MOLTEN STEEL that you can see inside the building. Clearly the factory was brought down by thermite (mate?, mite? moot? I don't know...).

Heh, thermoot. I like it.

 

[beachnut]

Fire can damage steel, I knew that already and it's logical, I also don't say that that is not possible. An other thing to mention is that a large structure works as a giant heat sink avoiding a lot of damage.

I told you to put some spray on fire proofing on your heat sink and see if it works as a heat sink.

you are messing up, yes objects assorb heat, but there is no heat sink in the WTC like your CPU heat sink

You never want any heat in the steel, no heat in the steel. This is why they protect the steel with concrete, spray on fire stuff, etc.

Heavy wood construction, I mean 3 or 5 foot wood supports, will do better than steel components not protected. Heat sink?

You do not want your steel structure to take any heat any where.

 

[Kent1]

Madrid had reports of explosions and molten metal also. LOL!

Here's a molten metal quote

Bright orange and red flames devoured the building, initially ravaging the upper floors before spreading downward, stripping away its metal and glass shell in twisted pieces to expose the smoldering concrete skeleton. Giant fireballs were seen rising into the night sky as parts of its sides collapsed, raining fire and molten metal onto the streets below.
(Links out of date, but the story can still be found)
http://www.iht.com/getina/files/225478.html
http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=...o+streets+below&d=PEvuSZIFNnaR&icp=1&.intl=us

 

[beachnut]

I am concerned that no one has mentioned the MOLTEN STEEL that you can see inside the building. Clearly the factory was brought down by thermite (mate?, mite? moot? I don't know...).

It is thermitaid and thermataid, Dr Jones has found proof Kool-Aid burnt byproducts were at paper factory

 

[apathoid]

Madrid had reports of explosions and molten metal also. LOL!

Explosions and molten metal in a burning skyscaper, you say?
How is that possible if an office building fire can only reach 250 C?

 

[Kent1]

Explosions and molten metal in a burning skyscaper, you say?
How is that possible if an office building fire can only reach 250 C?

Did the author really think that one out. PAPER has an IGNITION temperature of approximately 232 degrees Celsius!

 

[apathoid]

Did the author really think that one out. PAPER has an IGNITION temperature of approximately 232 degrees Celsius!

Most of the paper found after the collapses wasnt burned at all, so the temp couldnt have reached 232C anywhere in the Towers. Fact.

Is that how CT logic works?

 

[Kent1]

Most of the paper found after the collapses wasnt burned at all, so the temp couldnt have reached 232C anywhere in the Towers. Fact.

Is that how CT logic works?

911 Mysterious actually has some sort of conspiracy about the blowing paper. Although I can't remember the details off hand.

They also make the absurd claim that open air fires can only reach 1200F!

 

[Bell]

911 Mysterious actually has some sort of conspiracy about the blowing paper. Although I can't remember the details off hand.

They also make the absurd claim that open air fires can only reach 1200F!

Not sure if this is the one you are refering to, but I saw a short clip (from a conspiraloon movie) on Google, where some nutter (with a very anoying voice, felt like shooting an arrow through my ears) who went on about all the pulverized concrete and such, but yet... the papers that were blown out of the WTC towers were all in one piece. "Dust and paper, think about it!" WEIRD!!1!!!eleven!!1!!!

 

[Gravy]

allright then, but then you can also not use this building as a example for wtc.

I know the story of course, the combination of damage and fire. The damage makes it weak and finally fire brought it down an hour later after it was damaged.

You apparently don't know the story. Do you know the probable causes and specific mechanism that NIST gives for the tower collapses?

But why is there absolute silence for an hour and no between state, the stories don't make it plausible.

Einsteen! We've been through this exact same crap before with you, debunking the exact same claims. If you're not going to pay attention, then why are you here?

What I don’t understand is that it is such a discontinuous process; the block doesn’t hang at a wire, 3.7m above the building, that breaks by a candle flame, but you see a lot of strong intact steel, people standing, steel not popping out one-by one during that hour, but absolute silence in the structure for an hour.

No. Peopel did hear sounds. The building was observed to bow outward on the damaged areas. Sure, if you ignore all the evidence it looks like it happened all at once. But that makes you intellectually dishonest.

This is something that maybe could be tested with a scale model. If something holds a massive block for an hour without any bending and then....

Sorry, I'm fresh out of chickenwire and kerosene. Feel free to design a valid model, and to be able to show why it's valid, and to compare it to the towers, which were collapsing from the moment they were struck by the aircraft.

in the wtc1 movie there is a correlation with a camera shake 10 seconds before the collapse,

A correlation to what? The tripod shaking? And how do you know that someone didn't bump the tripod? You don't. You are unable to show any causal relationship between an event in the tower and the tripod shake.

someone said the core died probably first

Who said that, why is their opinion valid, and how does it fit with the collapse models created by the investigators?

but that doesn't solve the matter it only places the same question 10 seconds earlier in time.

In your confused mind only.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Not sure if this is the one you are refering to, but I saw a short clip (from a conspiraloon movie) on Google, where some nutter (with a very anoying voice, felt like shooting an arrow through my ears) who went on about all the pulverized concrete and such, but yet... the papers that were blown out of the WTC towers were all in one piece. "Dust and paper, think about it!" WEIRD!!1!!!eleven!!1!!!

everyone knows if you drop a[peice of apper from a 110 story building it shatters into a million peices

 

[Bell]

everyone knows if you drop a[peice of apper from a 110 story building it shatters into a million peices

Yes, apper tends to do that

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Yes, apper tends to do that

quiet sock puppet!

im trying to type coherently whilst eating lunch and its not working well

 

[Gravy]

If Siegel's recordings are fake(d) then there are still a lot of testimonies, the sound was really incredible, before the collapse and during the collapse. I think testimonies should be taken seriously to a certain amount, in the same way as Gravy uses testimonies for his wtc7 paper.

Show me a single eyewitness or recording that corroborates Siegel's claim.

 

[Bell]

quiet sock puppet!

im trying to type coherently whilst eating lunch and its not working well

Ah yes, we men are still not quite capable of multitasking

 

[Gravy]

If the ground was shaking, then the Lamont Doherty Seismographs wouldve recorded this movement, correct? Why didnt they?

Indeed. Nor was anything recorded by the seismographs that Protec had in the immediate area.

 

[rwguinn]

I told you to put some spray on fire proofing on your heat sink and see if it works as a heat sink.

you are messing up, yes objects assorb heat, but there is no heat sink in the WTC like your CPU heat sink

You never want any heat in the steel, no heat in the steel. This is why they protect the steel with concrete, spray on fire stuff, etc.

Heavy wood construction, I mean 3 or 5 foot wood supports, will do better than steel components not protected. Heat sink?

You do not want your steel structure to take any heat any where.

Go get a piece of steel, 2 feet long, 1" square. Put 1 end in a nice, hot, fire. It will soon glow orange on that end. Pick it up, by the other end, bare handed. Put the orange end on an anvil. Hit it with a hammer. Watch it spread out, easily. Let it cool. Hit it with a hammer. watch it do nothing. Learn the other reason why blacksmiths go to H3!! (the first is not charging enough).
put the beatten-upon end back in the fire. Lather, rinse, repeat.
This is called forging. Note that the cool end can be handled bare handed--yet it is steel, heated hotternheck at the other end. In fact, even after the glow is gone and it looks black, you can light a cigar on it.

 

[einsteen]

A correlation to what? The tripod shaking? And how do you know that someone didn't bump the tripod? You don't. You are unable to show any causal relationship between an event in the tower and the tripod shake.

Who said that, why is their opinion valid, and how does it fit with the collapse models created by the investigators?

It was one of the debunkers who said the core died first, I can't remember. You're right Gravy, I was also thinking about someone who shaked the tripod, we don't know where it is located then we need the source, but there is also a correlation with that shaking and a piece of debris falling from the right somewhere at the point of impact.

Of course it is not easy to match with the seismic data because the tripod and camera has its own resonance frequency, there might be a small time delay and er don't know how far the camera is and so on.

I just re-readed Greening's part and its very interesting, he says that the huge peaks is not the collapse but the debris falling on the ground and the intact block caving in. But if the tripod really shaked (that should be investigated) due to the events ongoing in the building then it has te be reviewed, the collapse itself doesn't let the camera shake but once the debris hits the ground is shakes again but with less amplitude. I think the peak is correlated with the camera shaking.