Can anyone explain this picture(s) to me?

[defaultdotxbe]

Yes because as we all know even though the massive steel members used to assemble the core of the WTC weren't strong enough to survive the precollapse fire.......wood, plaster, glass, plastic, etc all would have survived the massive heat and burned later at much much higher tempatures than their properties allow.

you do relaize that most of both towers was not on fire when it collapsed, right?

also "higher temperatures than their properties allow" isnt accurate, combustion is a chemical reaction that releases energy, theoretically there is no maximum temperature a material can burn at given the correct circumstances, lack of oxygen is one circumstance that can increase the combustion temperature of a meterial, i explained this in a previous post

 

[DGM]

Yes because as we all know even though the massive steel members used to assemble the core of the WTC weren't strong enough to survive the precollapse fire.......wood, plaster, glass, plastic, etc all would have survived the massive heat and burned later at much much higher tempatures than their properties allow.

Is there any other building fires this example can be compared to where normal office contents such as furniture and capeting and copy machines burned at higher temptatures than their properties allow a month after the fact while being starved of oxygen underneath the rubble of the building?

Why "starved for oxygen"? There were large open areas and subway tunnels under those buildings. The debris also helps insulate and trap the heat. Like a kiln.

 

[DavidJames]

Yes because as we all know even though the massive steel members used to assemble the core of the WTC weren't strong enough to survive the precollapse fire.......wood, plaster, glass, plastic, etc all would have survived the massive heat and burned later at much much higher tempatures than their properties allow.

Do you actually think about the words you put into posts? Do you actually think about what you are saying? Do you actually consider the implications of the words you type?

Your post has stundie written all over it.

 

[jaydeehess]

Your assertion ...........belies a lack of understanding proven by the pic I posted. I don't feel the need to respond to every post directed at me, especially those that are blatantly contradicted by easily obtained information.

Your post belies a problem with reading comprehension in that I started the paragraph with the word "usually". A fact I pointed out in the follow up post.

In fact if a column is to be cut to allow a building to come straight down then the cut will almost always be a horizontal one and utilize a kicker charge to offset the two pieces. If the building is to fall in a set direction then the cut may be at an angle to allow this to occur.

We know that the lower part of the towers showed no predisposition to fall in any particular direction which would be in evidence had the columns been cut at an angle. In fact one of the bugaboo's that the TM keeps harping on is the general symmetry of the collapses. Please feel free to reconcile the angle cut columns with a symmetric collapse.

 

[jaydeehess]

Jet fuel, right?

You do believe jet fuel based fire was burning at the bottom of the WTC rubble a month after the attack don't you?

I don't. Do you know anyone who does?

The jet fuel was simply the acellerant that ignited a multi-floor fire in each tower. A multi floor fire has never occured within seconds, that I know of, prior to 9/11/01.Tthe closest would have been the 100 or so gallons of fuel from the B-25 that hit the Empire State Bldg. That hardly compares with the several thousand gallons from Flt 11 and Flt 175.

There is no so-called official story that has the jet fuel being the major component of the fuel for the fires either on the fire floors or in the rubble pile.

 

[BenBurch]

You don't believe your own eyes?

because you are lying...

 

[Quad4_72]

Still waiting to hear TC's thoughts on the video..

 

[WildCat]

Still waiting to hear TC's thoughts on the video..

That was from a program aired on PBS. PBS is funded by the government, how convenient that it shows up after Dr. Jones reveals the thermite cuts!

/truther

 

[Alferd_Packer]

A month after the attack and those oxygen starved jet fuel fires were still smoking.....what more could a jihadi ask for?

Did you know that there are underground coal seam fires and buried fires in landfills that have burned for years, decades and even centuries? One fire in Austrailia has been estimated to have been burning for 2000 years.

The temperatures in those fires can get pretty high, as well.

 

[TC329]

There is no so-called official story that has the jet fuel being the major component of the fuel for the fires either on the fire floors or in the rubble pile.

So the towers simply came straight down because of office fires?

 

[HyJinX]

So the towers simply came straight down because of office fires?

If not...then how?

 

[Arus808]

So the towers simply came straight down because of office fires?

and that is a false statement and you know it.
how many times must it be spoon fed to you truthers ,taht a combination of events caused the towers to collapse? You claim that the towers can withstand plane impacts, but ignore the fires. Then you claim that there were only fires, but ignore the plane impacts.

you can't have it as either/or . ITs all or nothing.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Is there any other building fires this example can be compared to where normal office contents such as furniture and capeting and copy machines burned at higher temptatures than their properties allow a month after the fact while being starved of oxygen underneath the rubble of the building?

While this is not a building fire, the comparison to the ground zero rubble pile is valid.

Centrailia

More:

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Coal_fires

 

[The Big Dog]

Anyhow, this thread was a complete rout.

They are all getting to be this way, aren't they?

 

[Quad4_72]

So the towers simply came straight down because of office fires?

Again, you avoid responding to the posted video. Why is this?

 

[WildCat]

Anyhow, this thread was a complete rout.

They are all getting to be this way, aren't they?

It's almost embarrassing! I think they really thought that with Gravy gone they'd be able to pwn us and stuff...

 

[BenBurch]

So the towers simply came straight down because of office fires?

Well, yes, exactly, of course the damaged structure was obviously a big part too.

 

[R.Mackey]

So the towers simply came straight down because of office fires?

TC329, if you do not even know the most basic summary of the "official theory," you cannot possibly criticize it.

I strongly urge you to read NCSTAR1 before commenting any further. I'll be glad to help if you have any questions about the report.

 

[jaydeehess]

So the towers simply came straight down because of office fires?

That would be an incredibly simplistic explanation of a situation which involved much more.

Large, fast aircraft hit the towers causing a significant amount of damage to the load bearing members of the structure. The impact also dislodged a significant amount of the passive fire protection and disabled any active fire suppression systems. The large amount of liquid fuel on board the aircraft was spread out in much of the area of several consecutive floors igniting major office fires on all of them. Structural members exposed to the heat of the fires then heated up and lost a percentage of their ability to carry a load. The building now had several consecutive levels on which columns were losing load carrying strength due to being heated while the truss system also was being compromised by heating and which were the system that supplied bracing between core and perimeter as well as the damage caused to both columns and floor pans by the initial impact. The structure responded by redistributing loads as structural members sagged or suffered from creep until the point at which the redistribution caused complete failure in one or more structural members that in turn caused further load redistribution which also could not be handled and therefore in turn caused more failures in quick succession.
At this point the upper section came down on the next intact floors space. Since the load bearing columns no longer lined up the impact was on the trusses which were never designed to hold the mass of the upper several stories let alone the impact force of that mass dropping on them, The lower section columns speared upward through the falling upper section as did the columns of the upper section spear through the lower section. The falling mass acellerated and the entire building collapsed.

The debris consisted of not only the steel and concrete but also of the office furnishings, file cabinet contents, computers, carpeting and of course the automobiles that were in the parking area. There was an oxygen supply from the subway system as well as from above. there were passages through the rubble more than enough to allow fires to rage underground where heat released would more slowly escape than if these fires were in open air. Certainly the rubble contained spaces that allowed several people to survive and be rescued.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... but if you wish to believe that the so-called official story is that office fires caused the buildings to fall that would be your perogative.

Now, how about them pictures in the OP?

 

[RedIbis]

because you are lying...

About what? Be specific and quote whenever possible. Mendacity is a serious charge, not as much for the accused as the accuser. If you throw that term around it says far more about you than me. Unless you can prove it, you are quilty of exactly that which you accuse.