Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Willravel · 02-15-2005, 10:16 AM

Relative to the 'temperature' argument, the imagery of the WTC does NOT reveal the aluminum siding of the WTC towers deforming. Thus, given the constant exposure - over time - to any escaping heat, it is difficult to imagine the fires being so hot as to cause either catastrophic or abrupt damage to the WTC vertical support structure. None of the images of the outer steel structure show the otherwise expected red-hot glow. All images show the outer shell mechanically destroyed, versus collapsing from thermal cause. Given the mechanics of the heat escape, the outer columns were the most vulnerable to heat damage. No matter what fire dynamics were going on within the building, the heat escape was almost exclusively - and constantly - around the outer columns. Hence, given both time and temperature, the outer columns should have been the structural 'weak-link.

Also, it should be mentioned that the FEMA report, the only real investigation with access to the collapsed remains, did not think the fuel was sufficient to initiate the structurel collapse.

From Chapter 2 of the FEMA report:

"The large quantity of jet fuel carried by each aircraft ignited upon impact into each building. A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact.The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings."

This suggests that the desks and paper and carpet and normal office furnature, ignited by the jet fuel fire, were able to melt the steel. That is basically impossible. I challenge you to melt a piece of aluminum (the melting point, and warping point, of which is substantially lower than steel) with a wood or plastic burning fire.

Take some normal paper, some wood, some plastic and some propane fuel. Douce the paper, wood, and plastic with the propane and light it in a safe burning area. Let it catch fire, and put a role of aluminum foil in it. Come back in a few hours. Do you think the aluminum would have melted? I can tell you the answer. The role in the center of the aluminum has melted, and there are singe marks on the outside, but the aluminum has not even begun to melt. It's physics.

These facts are not what surprise me. We've seen people do some pretty aweful stuff before. What really gets me is that no one asked these questions!

02-15-2005, 10:16 AM	#18 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Relative to the 'temperature' argument, the imagery of the WTC does NOT reveal the aluminum siding of the WTC towers deforming. Thus, given the constant exposure - over time - to any escaping heat, it is difficult to imagine the fires being so hot as to cause either catastrophic or abrupt damage to the WTC vertical support structure. None of the images of the outer steel structure show the otherwise expected red-hot glow. All images show the outer shell mechanically destroyed, versus collapsing from thermal cause. Given the mechanics of the heat escape, the outer columns were the most vulnerable to heat damage. No matter what fire dynamics were going on within the building, the heat escape was almost exclusively - and constantly - around the outer columns. Hence, given both time and temperature, the outer columns should have been the structural 'weak-link. Also, it should be mentioned that the FEMA report, the only real investigation with access to the collapsed remains, did not think the fuel was sufficient to initiate the structurel collapse. From Chapter 2 of the FEMA report: "The large quantity of jet fuel carried by each aircraft ignited upon impact into each building. A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact.The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings." This suggests that the desks and paper and carpet and normal office furnature, ignited by the jet fuel fire, were able to melt the steel. That is basically impossible. I challenge you to melt a piece of aluminum (the melting point, and warping point, of which is substantially lower than steel) with a wood or plastic burning fire. Take some normal paper, some wood, some plastic and some propane fuel. Douce the paper, wood, and plastic with the propane and light it in a safe burning area. Let it catch fire, and put a role of aluminum foil in it. Come back in a few hours. Do you think the aluminum would have melted? I can tell you the answer. The role in the center of the aluminum has melted, and there are singe marks on the outside, but the aluminum has not even begun to melt. It's physics. These facts are not what surprise me. We've seen people do some pretty aweful stuff before. What really gets me is that no one asked these questions!