Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Well, I guess the pecimist side is just like the comspiracy side: we don't have a single theory. That makes sense, of course, but it's something to bear in mind. Not all 9/11 truth spreaders tell the same story.
|
With anything of this magnitude, there will always be questions, which girder failed first, which floor was it on, how hot were the fires, etc… however, some things are clear, it was not space aliens, it was not Vikings, nor rabid weasels.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
To a point, the temperature of the air doesn't matter. It should be said that there are limits, though. Taking into account that human flesh can only survive up to a certian temperature (I'm still looking for that temperature, espically for the more fragile lung tissue and brachioles). If you've ever been in a room that's on fire, you know that the air can easily be too hot to breathe. This superfire that brought down two of the best steel reinforced buildings ever built in about a n hour should be pretty damn hot. How hot? That depends on who you ask. Some people say 1500F, some people say 500F. I think that if we are assuming the fire did bring down the building, it was damned hot - probably closer to the 1500F number than the 500F.
|
I would agree that it was closer to 1500C, but I use 500C as a low bound I’m sure it was hotter then that, and 500C is all the heat I need on the beam to show a good cause of the failure of the building.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I think we should agree on a temperature, and then also agree on how how the air peoplke breathe can be before closing this discussion point.
|
It’s hard to agree on a temperature, in any investigation, it needs to be a range of possibilities, at least 500C, but no more than 1500C
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
We don't know where the fires were. While overall the center might have been more hot, we simply don't know. We don't know how much air was cycling through.
|
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Locations.jpg
from this illustration of the impacts, you can see that WTC 1 was hit and the plane dumped its fuel over the 60 foot beams, as for WTC 2 it is very possible that the fuel was spilled over the eastern 60 foot beams, at least the southern part of it. this center of heat would have stretched the beams nearest more then those farther away, causing the beams to fall off of there gusset plates, casing large support beams to fail.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Hahaha, I know temperature is different than heat, but I'm trying to make this argument in as simple terms as I can. Fire spreads heat through solid, liquid or gas. Yes, it moves through them each with different efficency, but it does heat them all.
Air doesn't move heat as well as metal, but it sure does move flames and smoke. The smoke it moved was initially black, but quickly turned grey, and the flames died down pretty quickly aswell. That, in addition to the workers, suggests that the temperature started very hot, and slowly cooled down. Also, there was a fire suppression system in the WTC, and it didn't completely 'malfunction' like in WTC7. I'm sure you've put a hot pan under the water faucet to see it cool off in a few seconds.
|
I had heard that the fire suppression failed completely, how ever, if it was partially active, that could make matters worse, by cooling parts of the building it would exasperated the difference in temperature across the deferent beams, causing a larger length difference than I had calculated. As I already showed, a difference of 231.5 C will cause the beam to fall off of the gusset plates.
One quick change, in my previous post, I meant to use Celsius, not Fahrenheit