Fire, steel, and 911.

beachnut said:
Where the heck are you going?

Just lay all you have all at once and stop beating around the bush.

Tell me what you have for real and stop repeating the old CT junk. Please?
Click to expand...

as opposed to the new CT junk? the old favorites are all they got
 
When you poke a hole in the side of a tubular structure and start a fire in that hole you create a convective furnace complete with its own chimney and fresh air intake.
 
28th Kingdom said:
"Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the airplane impacts." NIST, p.148

"The towers likely would NOT have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact." NIST, p. xxxviii

We've got some problems here...someone find those posts where someone kept asking why buildings are required to be fireproofed....and you'll discover something very interesting.
Click to expand...

Do you know what "stable after the airplane impacts" actually means? It means they didn't just topple over sideways imediately upon being hit. It means they stayed up long enough to evacuate most of the people in them. It doesn't mean they would stay up forever.

And the bit about the insulation is speculation. No one knows for sure if they could have eventually brought the fires under control given enough time, or if they would have burned long enough to cause a collapse anyways. Although a lot of the people on the ground that day didn't think they could control those fires at all.

And find you own posts if you want to make a point. We're sick of doing your work for you.
 
End of WWII:

"No Explosive has ever killed 70,000 people at once, therefore, there is no way that the atomic bomb was responsible for the deaths at Heroshima."



The above is a more obvious example of the kind of logic (or lack there of) that goes into this entire theory you are spueing 28K.

TAM
 
T.A.M. said:
End of WWII:

"No Explosive has ever killed 70,000 people at once, therefore, there is no way that the atomic bomb was responsible for the deaths at Heroshima."



The above is a more obvious example of the kind of logic (or lack there of) that goes into this entire theory you are spueing 28K.

TAM
Click to expand...

Well the A-Bomb was unlike any other explosive before it...so how were the fires in the WTC Towers unlike any other fire before them?
 
28th Kingdom said:
Well the A-Bomb was unlike any other explosive before it...so how were the fires in the WTC Towers unlike any other fire before them?
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know, perhaps the fact they were started by fuel laden airplanes traveling at high speed would be one major difference.


ETA.. just a little too slow, but not quite as slow as Mr. Skinny :)
 
Last edited:
28th Kingdom said:
Well the A-Bomb was unlike any other explosive before it...so how were the fires in the WTC Towers unlike any other fire before them?
Click to expand...
Well, for starters, no airliner had ever slammed into a 110 story skyscraper at full speed before.

28th Kingdom, someone before suggested that you take some courses in Physics, Thermodynamics, Strength of Materials and the like. I've taken these courses and they really helped with my understanding of the 9/11 tragedy.

I'd just like to second that poster's suggestion. It would clear up a lot of your questions.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
Well, for starters, no airliner had ever slammed into a 110 story skyscraper at full speed before.

28th Kingdom, someone before suggested that you take some courses in Physics, Thermodynamics, Strength of Materials and the like. I've taken these courses and they really helped with my understanding of the 9/11 tragedy.

I'd just like to second that poster's suggestion. It would clear up a lot of your questions.
Click to expand...
Good suggestions, but IMO reading the NIST report is the place to start.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Well the A-Bomb was unlike any other explosive before it...so how were the fires in the WTC Towers unlike any other fire before them?
Click to expand...

The fires were started with 10,000 gallons of fuel, I have never seen that much fire in the that much building in that little time!

10,000 gallons of fuel, the heat energy of 315 tons of TNT, that would heat a lot steel, and start a lot of fire. Told you a fact how they were unlike any!

Plus the impact destoryed the fire systems, the system to fight the fire was rendered inop.

Next, how many of the buildings that did not really survive fires have an aircraft impact of a ton of TNT, delivering fuel into the building of 10,000 gallons, over 60,000 pound of fuel equal in heat to 315 tons of TNT?

do you think there is a small 60,000 pounds of fuel difference? When is the last time you pumped 10,000 gallons of fuel?
 
28th Kingdom said:
Thanks for the reply. Yes, please. EVERYONE watch this...because we're about to get places with this conversation...because I want to address specific passages that are contained in this video...and are taken straight from the NIST report.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyK9-58aF1c

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Regarding the video above, why is it CT'ers insist on comparing the Windsor Tower fire to the WTC?

It's impossible to compare the WTC collapse to other high rise fires especially when you don't consider the differences in building size and design, and also don't consider the structural damage and compromised fireproofing caused by the plane impact.

Here are a few differences...

Windsor Tower - 106m high and had 32 floors.

WTC 1 - 417.0m high and had 110 floors - Hit by Flight 11 between the 94th and 98th floors, weight of the structure above the weakened area 50,000+ tons.

WTC 2 - 417.0m high and had 110 floors - Hit by Flight 175 between the 78th and 84th floors, weight of the structure above the weakened area 110,000+ tons.

28th Kingdom why did the collapse start at the impact zone on each tower?
 
Last edited:
28th Kingdom said:
Well the A-Bomb was unlike any other explosive before it...so how were the fires in the WTC Towers unlike any other fire before them?
Click to expand...

The fires in The Twins were different from any high-rise fires that came before them because they were preceded and caused by intentional high-speed head-on crashes of fuel-loaded jetliners which not only started the fires with their fuel but also severely damaged numerous exterior support girders and interior core columns while stripping several steel members of their fire resistant insulation. I can't think of a previous high-rise in which that was the case.

Also, The Twins were easily the tallest buildings ever to be struck by massive, multi-story fires. With the elevators rendered useless, it would have been impossible for enough firefighters to get up to the floors that were on fire and subdue the main pockets of fire before the unsevered core columns and exterior girders, whose insulation had been knocked off and were, as a result, weakening from exposure to heat, exceeded their load bearing capabilities and collapsed under the weight of everything above them.
 
When is the last time you pumped 10,000 gallons of fuel?
Click to expand...

I doubt he is that busy at work, though he might average 3-4000 gallons on a very busy day at the full service station. ;)
 
28th Kingdom said:
"Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the airplane impacts." NIST, p.148
Click to expand...
"stable" doesnt mean "undamaged"

"The towers likely would NOT have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact." NIST, p. xxxviii
Click to expand...
nuff said

the towers did not collapse due to fire alone
 
Gravy said:
Good suggestions, but IMO reading the NIST report is the place to start.
Click to expand...
Certainly, he should read the available data first, hoping to understand what he can understand, but if you are totally ignorant of the sciences, then you won't comprehend much of it.

Somewhat of a chicken/egg problem, IMHO, Gravy.

28th Kingdom doesn't seem to have much understanding of these areas, as best I've been able to ascertain so far, so I'm thinking that a few basics in these areas would help him.

He could probably learn a few things that would help him greatly in about 6 months, if he applied himself. Granted, I'm talking some very basic stuff, but 6 mos. of study would really help.



And, though I usually stay out of CT threads, I'd like to make a small request: Could you (the JREF'ers in particular) please stop making fun of CT'ers user names? Can you not make your argument without calling people idiots, etc.?

Frankly, I'm becoming a bit embarrassed reading these threads at times. I've noticed the recent suspensions from both sides, but mostly I'm ashamed of the JREF'ers. :(
 
28th Kingdom said:
I've seen a lot of vids of the collapses....but at 4:40 of this video, is some of the best footage I have ever seen...which shows a closeup slow-mo of the floors being blowup floor by floor in a downward wave:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5kF9ldtgrc
Click to expand...

I thought you were debunked, did I miss your vaporization by the beam weapon, silent explosives, thermite explosion?

I would think watching that many youtube CT videos was against the laws of nature, physics and sanity; was I wrong?

Your videos show a building falling on its own after it was impacted, burned by fuel, burned by contents and fell.

all 248 tons of TNT equivalent energy stored in the WTC as potential energy was released due to failure of the steel to support itself. The video shows the building destroying itself, that is exactly what they use in real CD work! GRAVITY!

Look it up study CD, and you will see!

When will you just tell us your theory and your hard evidence you said you had?????
 
28th Kingdom said:
I've seen a lot of vids of the collapses....but at 4:40 of this video, is some of the best footage I have ever seen
Click to expand...

Seriously, thats some of the best video evidence you can present?
You might as well give up now, and save yourself some time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom