Fire, steel, and 911.

Porkpie Hat said:
Here is the quote in context btw.



You are sooooo intellectually dishonest. Did you actually think that no one here would read the article?
Click to expand...
Let me answer for 28th Kingdom...

"I took it off one of my favorite 9/11 conspiracy websites and didn't question it further because I'm only interested in cherry-picked evidence that supports my tin-foil theory, I dismiss any evidence or investigation that doesn't support my theories, got it! I will now quietly drop this quote out-of-context and act like I never posted it!"

:D
 
Dazed said:
Let me phrase this question in an analogous way. If holding a blow torch to a beam doesn't make it fail, why should putting away the torch and using a match cause failure?
Click to expand...
As the steel cools it distorts and bends. Tensile forces at critical connections increase and microstructure changes in the steel affecting its properties (ie yield and tensile strength). This is all dependant on temperature of course.

Try an experiment if you don't believe me. Buy a piece of I beam (any size, spec, grade), heat it up on one side (simulating fire conditions; uneven heat) then let it cool. Report your findings.

This is one of the reasons the fire retardant coating was used.
 
Spins said:
28th Kingdom is this not your idea of a thorough investigation, if so what is? Also do you think all 200 technical experts are lying, if not why have they come to the conclusions they have after a thorough 3 year investigation?
Click to expand...

To say there is no corroborative evidence of explosives in the buildings...is just beyond insanity. Firsthand accounts...including firefighter audio from within the buildings reporting explosions going off after the impacts, video footage that shows squibs and projecting debris, that can only be certifiably caused (unless you are buying some planes hitting buildings caused a new physical phenomenon of space and time theory) with some type of explosive device...the molten steel in the pits of the towers (which can only be created with the massive amount of heat generated by certain types of explosive devices) I can and will document this if you need me to...including video of workers at ground zero weeks after the collapse...talking about red hot stuff below the rubble.

"NIST never simulated the global collapse, only the events that lead up to the collapse."

How utterly suspicious and CONVENIENT of them.
 
Spins said:
Let me answer for 28th Kingdom...

"I took it off one of my favorite 9/11 conspiracy websites and didn't question it further because I'm only interested in cherry-picked evidence that supports my tin-foil theory, I dismiss any evidence or investigation that doesn't support my theories, got it! I will now quietly drop this quote out-of-context and act like I never posted it!"

:D
Click to expand...
Not the smartest peanut in the **** is he?


Edited to remove offensive word; in the future, Porkpie, it would be appreciated if you'd make your point in a somewhat less vulgar way.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
You are making unsubstantiated assumptions. All that can be said from those two pics is that the pic at ~9:14 has more externally visible flames than the pic at ~9:58.
Click to expand...

While that may be true, it would also be an unsubstantiated assumption to say that there were more internal, non visible flames, which is what you seem to be implying.

My question is somewhat isolated from this variable anyway. What I'm curious about is, if the fire actually was decreasing in intensity, would that matter? Consider the analogy I used.
 
Dazed said:
I'm on the side of objectivity.
Click to expand...

God Bless you...that's all I can ask. Just be open-minded and OBJECTIVE. The type of logic you used on those pics...is definitely the way people need to start looking at this.

Please, don't blind yourself from simple common sense and logic...coupled with CLEAR as day visual and audio evidence that not only contradicts NIST's report but corroborates the PET (Planted Explosive Theory)
 
Porkpie Hat said:
As the steel cools it distorts and bends. Tensile forces at critical connections increase and microstructure changes in the steel affecting its properties (ie yield and tensile strength). This is all dependant on temperature of course.

Try an experiment if you don't believe me. Buy a piece of I beam (any size, spec, grade), heat it up on one side (simulating fire conditions; uneven heat) then let it cool. Report your findings.

This is one of the reasons the fire retardant coating was used.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.
 
28Th KINGDOM - you are an idiot!

You (and all the Conspiracy nutjobs) like to quote things like the FIRE
ENGINEERING article without

(1) Bothering to read it

(2) Having any understanding of what it means

I have read the article (several times) and as member of the fire services
understand what they were attempting to do

FIRE ENGINEERING published the article in response to the preliminary FEMA
report about what caused WTC collapse. The editors and other members
of the fire protection community figured that the FEMA report would be a
simple stating of facts along the lines of:

Big ass planes hit buildings

Buildings catch fire

Buildings fall down

They were concerned that the issues of lax building codes which contributed
to the disaster would be overlooked . Things like spray on fire proofings -
which were inadequate in terms of thickness (noboby had ever done tests
about how thick coatings had to be to resist fire) and that it had tendency
to peel or flake off over time, long span truss beam for floor supports -
truss when exposed to fire sags and collapses in short period of time because
truss is made of number of lightweight components versus massive structural
beams which resist heating, inadequate exits - WTC buildings had only 3
stairs, 2 only 44" wide (3rd 56") - barely wide enough for 2 people and
that stairs were encased in sheet rock vs concreate, which did not resist
impacts and blocked stairsway trapping thousands above the impact zones

From your statements conclude you are either stupid or troll (probably


Kindly keep in mind your membership agreement concerning civility toward other forum members. There's no reason to call someone an idiot or stupid in order to make your point.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Porkpie Hat said:
You are sooooo intellectually dishonest. Did you actually think that no one here would read the article?
Click to expand...
I really think that 28K didn't actually know the rest of the quote, and just apes stuff that he finds on conspiracy web sites. It's those web sites that are dishonest, and 28K is simply ignorant.
 
28th Kingdom said:
video footage that shows squibs and projecting debris, that can only be certifiably caused (unless you are buying some planes hitting buildings caused a new physical phenomenon of space and time theory) with some type of explosive device...
Click to expand...

Oh damn, the squibs! You just uncovered the whole plot!
 
Dazed said:
Thanks for the reply.
Click to expand...
Your welcome.

I stated this before and I will state it again.

The events of 911 were macroscopic (planes hitting buildings, buildings collapsing) and microscopic ( heating and cooling of structural steel) in nature. This is something the CT crowd just doesn't get.
 
Dazed said:
While that may be true, it would also be an unsubstantiated assumption to say that there were more internal, non visible flames, which is what you seem to be implying.

My question is somewhat isolated from this variable anyway. What I'm curious about is, if the fire actually was decreasing in intensity, would that matter? Consider the analogy I used.
Click to expand...

Go to CFLarsen for a moment, I am implying nothing. I am stating that the internal conditions can not be judged solely by the external visuals and that two snapshots in time may, or may not, be representative of the trend of conditions over that same time period. Example: I take a picture in London at 03:00 GMT on Jan. 1, 2006 and take another picture in London at 03:00 GMT on Jan. 2, 2006. I can not validly conclude that it is always dark in London based upon those to pics.

ETA: Regardng your question: If the fire was decreasing in intesity, would it matter? I'd have to defer to fire experts and structural engineers. Is the damage already done? How quickly was the intesity decreasing? etc
 
Last edited:
28th Kingdom said:
God Bless you...that's all I can ask. Just be open-minded and OBJECTIVE. The type of logic you used on those pics...is definitely the way people need to start looking at this.

Please, don't blind yourself from simple common sense and logic...coupled with CLEAR as day visual and audio evidence that not only contradicts NIST's report but corroborates the PET (Planted Explosive Theory)
Click to expand...

Common sense and logic used to dictate the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it thank you very much.
 
I think they get it, but none of that matters to them because Larry Silverstein said Pull It and PNAC said they want a new Pearl Harbour.
 
28th Kingdom said:
To say there is no corroborative evidence of explosives in the buildings...is just beyond insanity. Firsthand accounts...including firefighter audio from within the buildings reporting explosions going off after the impacts, video footage that shows squibs and projecting debris, that can only be certifiably caused (unless you are buying some planes hitting buildings caused a new physical phenomenon of space and time theory) with some type of explosive device...the molten steel in the pits of the towers (which can only be created with the massive amount of heat generated by certain types of explosive devices) I can and will document this if you need me to...including video of workers at ground zero weeks after the collapse...talking about red hot stuff below the rubble.

"NIST never simulated the global collapse, only the events that lead up to the collapse."

How utterly suspicious and CONVENIENT of them.
Click to expand...
All been debunked before I'm afraid, use the search function. Anyways you didn't answer my questions, let me give you a hint the sentences end with a question mark, so here goes again...

NIST said:
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
Click to expand...
28th Kingdom is this not your idea of a thorough investigation, if so what is?

Also do you think all 200 technical experts are lying, if not why have they come to the conclusions they have after such a thorough 3 year investigation?
 
CurtC said:
I really think that 28K didn't actually know the rest of the quote, and just apes stuff that he finds on conspiracy web sites. It's those web sites that are dishonest, and 28K is simply ignorant.
Click to expand...
It's just sad. I'm starting to reach the conclusion that he's an idiot savant who just hasn't figured out what he's good at yet.
 
28th Kingdom said:
To say there is no corroborative evidence of explosives in the buildings...is just beyond insanity. Firsthand accounts...including firefighter audio from within the buildings reporting explosions going off after the impacts, video footage that shows squibs and projecting debris, that can only be certifiably caused (unless you are buying some planes hitting buildings caused a new physical phenomenon of space and time theory) with some type of explosive device...the molten steel in the pits of the towers (which can only be created with the massive amount of heat generated by certain types of explosive devices) I can and will document this if you need me to...including video of workers at ground zero weeks after the collapse...talking about red hot stuff below the rubble.

"NIST never simulated the global collapse, only the events that lead up to the collapse."

How utterly suspicious and CONVENIENT of them.
Click to expand...

Please do . Please tell me what type of explosives cause molten steel weeks after it has gone off.

Incidentally what is utterly suspicious and Convenient?

QFT and QFE

28Th KINGDOM - you are an idiot!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom