According to Popular Mechanics, it's 1500F. Remember? I linked it above. 1800F was the maximum theoretical temperature including evrything else in the building given by NIST (without any evidence or equasions, btw).

Time for work, I'll respond to the rest later. Good luck on the midterm.

willravel,

I have been wathching this thread from the sidelines. I don't usually post in Paranoia but I wanted challenge what you said becuase when I read Fatsom's anology I did not buy it either.

Fatsom's anology has two parts to it,

1) how he uses the analogy to say that while they may be physically possible the arguments put forward by those supporting the generally accepted (and I say generally accepted because it is probably true that most people just accept it) reasoning for what brought down the towers are just so unlikely. His analogy takes it a little to far in stating that these same people would use science to justify the person not hitting the ground. I will give him that however, becuase that was one of his the point (I assume, I have not talked to him) of using an anlogy.

2) how he presents his side as if he has all the answers, that the answers are obvious, and that they are so clear that they are impossible to miss. Saying that he would notice the rubber cord around the guys ankles is saying that his theories on the destruction of the towers are so obvious that anyone who can't see them must be blind.

I think that in his analogy someone who did not consider the cord around the ankles is blind. I don't think that is the case for the towers.

I think fatsom's first point is kind of teh argument that you have been making on this thread recently. You are saying that while it may be possible if everything lined up perfectly, you just don't buy it. That you feel that there has to be some other factors and that you are not sure of what those factors may be.

The second part of Fatsom's analogy says that his theory is a fact that is plain to see.

Actually they ran experiments, both virtual, and real world, to determine the temperature of the fires, I posted a link a few post ago.


you just got done saying it was likely that the temps were 800F, which is highly un likely, just like it is unlikely for a fire fueled only by jet fuel (jet fuel in controlled lab conditions) to burn at 800, or 1800, 800 is the minimum temperature for it to burn and has to be under the worst circumstances, 1800 is under optimal circumstances, the fires had decent circumstances, and the other fuels inside the building would allow the fires to get to 1500F.

as for making the building collapse with only 800F to deal with, yes i could, but it would be beyond the scope of what reasonable is, as i previously showed http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=437 it is possible to expands the support girders by the 2 inches required to drop the support by heating the metal by 231.5C, which is in fact 450 F. but a higher temperature just makes more since.

Dilbert
I'm calling your teacher, you aren't studying... and you really need to!

I'm not saying my theory is right, i'm saying the others are wrong. But thanks for taking the time to figure out what i'd said.
To recap, what is theoretically possible and what is likely are two different things. When "the real story" requires a whole bunch of improbable but theoretically possible circumstances it's just unlikely.

If you think a jet fuel fire does those sorts of things you are welcome to your opinion, i am very well versed in heating , bending and cutting steel, i did that for several hours today alone. I'd still be there trying at Christmas if i was using jet fuel... or drapes, or desks or carpet. Face it, you are afraid of fire, it's magic to you and does magical things. Fire is a useful tool to me.

By the way, where's this "Fatsom" coming from...i don't weigh THAT much! :|

I must say i enjoy the discussion, even if some of you are totally unreasonable. :thumbsup:

oops sorry about the fatsom. When youmade the comment about it I did not get what you were saying. it took careful study of your name to see that I was mixing up the s and t.

Sorry again.

For someone who supposably works with fire and bending steel all day you sure do have some weird opinions on it.

If you worked with fire you'd know that, when heated, metal becomes weaker and expands at the same time. You should also know there is a difference between heat and temperature. We have forged swords out of heat (WELL below 800 degrees) for millenia with simply heat and pressure. We know full well the WTC had plenty of both. Why is it so hard to believe that the smallest of cracks could grow and buckle?

Oh do I have to point out the "whole bunch of improbable" circumstances the cleanest conspiracy theories have again?

After pointing out my professor’s error, I aced the test.
It’s not just theoretically possible, it’s highly likely. Explosives are unlikely, there is to much extra work to get them placed, detonated, and cleaned up. It was shown in the report that under similar conditions, a fire in an office setting, will reach temperatures of 1000 C

They know the temperatures reached 1000C because they ran test to simulate the conditions, both physically and through computer simulations, both came up with a high bound of 1000C. Instead of saying ‘I don’t know so they musty be lying about it’ try doing some real research finding how they knew it

Ignoring the personal attacks…

I am hardly afraid of fire, I make more crème Brule in a year then you make in 10 lifetimes, and you know how I top them, with a propane blow torch. Propane burns at nearly 3000 F, how can I take a 3000F flame to a delicate sugary treat with out burning it? by turning the flame down and slowly moving the flame around the dish so no spot gets direct heat for to long, you see, the flame is 3000F but the flame does not instantly heat the sugar to 3000F, there’s a huge mathematical equation to calculate how much heat is actually transferred to it. The flame is on low, so it is not producing much heat, but its still 3000F. It slowly raises the temp of the sugar until it melts. If I was to have the flame on to high, the heat transfer would be too great and the sugar would burn before I could remove the flame. Why does this matter? I am trying to illustrate in terms you can understand what the difference between heat and temperature is. Although with quotes like this:
I’m not sure why I even bother, you just don’t get it.

To you, fire is a tool, I’m sure you use it, but you don’t understand it, your views on fire come from personal observations, not from scientific research, I’m sure if we were both given a blow torch and told to cut some steel, you’d be done before I even got mine lit, however, if we were asked us to both to explain it in scientific detail, how fire cuts steel, you’d be left floundering after saying ‘very well’.


It’s a conspiracy to discredit you; we all know fat people lie to get more free samples at the piggly wiggly.

Dilbert Dilbert Dilbert Dilbert Dilbert

Quit repeating yourself, we're at 16 pages already.

Take your 3000 degree propane torch (LOL) and try to make a 60 foot steel girder into a 60 foot 6 inch girder... i'll wait! :lol:

this is the second time you've made gross exaggerations to the fact that metal expands, the first being the car engine.

Metal doesn't need to expand that much nor does any material need to in order to make it deviate from the tolerences it was designed for. Most of the times when it falls out of tolerance, it fails.

Steel bridges grow and shrink by inches but were designed to adjust to the loads and they do grow by inches in some cases, that's why there are gaps in them at specific locations. Again, it's about engineering the loads and tolerances in such a way that the object will do what it was designed to do.

Applying direct heat to ONE location does not create the same conditions that allow for bridge steel to grow and contract.

I have to agree with Dilbert that you may appear to know the practical methods for using the materials but not how the materials truly react to loads and conditions.

I am very well aware metal expands... acutely aware. However... SIX INCHES ?
Can not, will not, no way, no how. Put that sixty foot beam in a furnace, heat the thing up cherry red and it isn't going to grow six inches.

Science fails you... i'm sorry.

http://phoenix.phys.clemson.edu/labs/223/expansion/

Steel can expand 24% it's noral length with heat.

You got it backwards, you fail science.

Not quite seaver... its 1.24 x10-5


The equation for linear expansion is ∆L= α L0 ∆T

Change in length equals the thermal coefficient for the material, times the initial length, times the change in temperature in degrees C (or K).

The thermal coefficient of steel is 1.24x10-5, so for every degree C change, the steel expands by 1.24x10-5 %. So to expand the 60 foot steel girder, that’s

0.5 = 1.24x10-5 * 60 * ∆T
∆T = 672.04 C

Well within the 1000C range I have to work with.

I'm not a structural engineer by any means, but the twin towers were constructed sturdy enough to where they should have been able to withstand being hit by a plane. The way the buildings collapsed (A perfect 90 degree angle) is/was indicative of a controlled demolition.

No computer alive would be able to simulate the twin towers falling the way they did due to being hit by a plane. It's not possible as it defies the laws of physics.

24%!!!! :lol:

Maybe you stopped reading my post, I corrected seaver, its 1.24xz10-5 per degree C, he misread the page, and like you did not grasp the thermal expansion of objects, it’s a common mistake; the result from the thermal expansion equation is delta L, not L. To get an expansion for steel of 24% is impossible; it would need to remain solid at a temperature of approximately, 20,000 C, that’s not possible at all. 6 inches on a 60 foot beam is easy, 0.833% can be done with a few hundred C, just because you don't understand it, does not mean it does not happen.

Glad we cleared that up, plenty of credible structural engineers have said it can collapse in the manner seen, and they have science to back it up, not baseless opinion.

What is the point of quoting part of a sentence and responding to it? Simply because I'm not a structural engineer doesn't mean that I haven't read articles and documentaries regarding the collapse of the twin towers.

1.) Buildings don't fall straight down at a perfect 90 degree angle unless there is a controlling factor behind it. We've all played Jenga, right? Well, I challenge someone to throw a rock at the top of a Jenga tower and see how it falls. I assure you that it won't be perpendicular to the ground.

2.) I've always wondered how the fires in the WTC were hot enough to melt reinforced steel beams, but not hot enough to melt the highjackers passports...

Actually, watch some demolition videos and you'll see that it's not always true that a building falls at a 90 perfect angle even in a controlled demolition. Throwing the rock at the upper of the jenga tower and you get the spray of debris just from what was HIT to outside of the structure. What you cannot account for in the jenga tower is that the piece of jenga are solid so you will not experience the same weakness of the support structure below the damaged area.

Also, please watch more 9/11 videos and you'll see that the structure did not fall in a straight line, it fell as it met resistence, some parts "blossomed' or "flowered" outwards and fell as far as BLOCKS away (please note that NYC blocks in Lower Manhattan are quite smaller than your average suburban sprawl blocks.)

there is a HUGE difrence, the inertia of the building vs the inertia of the jenja tower. the amount of force required to move the tower is an insane amout, where as the amount to move the jenga tower is marginal. the impact of the planes was just enough to rock the building a few inches, there is no way it could fall over, it has to fall stright down.

... And wait, it did tip a bit too, but not much why? Because the collapse started on one side first

http://www.debunking911.com/pivot.jpg

They were not hot enough to melt steel, no one credible is making that claim, the steel got hot enough to expand and weaken, not melt. So they found a passport, so what, weird shit happens.


After some further reading on the matter, I have some new things to bring to the table, I previously stated that the expanding girders would have dislodged some of the other girders, where as willravel said it would compact into the outer supports and strengthen the structure. Turns out, we were both wrong, it was a mix:

Dilbert, this vid I watched last night helped me visualize something I could not explain and I think that it is exactly what I'm reading in your above post.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bfe0Hbgq1HY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bfe0Hbgq1HY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

yeah that sums up waht i was saying, i wish i had a budget... all i have for visual aids is mspaint...

I wouldn't even call it wierd shit, I'd call it ejected from the primary impact, all those little bits and pieces of plane, luggage, bodyparts that rained down.

It just hit me; definitive proof there was no cover-up, no conspiracy; well maybe not definitive, but definitely something to think about. If it was 'so obvious' the towers were brought down by explosives, and not terrorist, why are the insurance agencies paying out. to anyone who says there was no investigation, don’t you think the agencies that insured the building would make damn sure they did not have to cover the damages, instead of shelling out the money, the insurance agency would cry foul, and they have the money to get any investigation done, it would be insurance fraud after all.

Good question. This is my response to the hypothetical insurance fraud (thus suggesting that my response is equally hypothetical):

Insurance companies have added "terrorism" to the insurance of tens of thousands of buildings across the world. That means that their income for decades to come has been notably increased across the board. Spend $100 million now, and rake in $12 billion over the next 10 years.

It would be an investment.

as an industry, yes, as an individual business, no. the company that insured the WTC has to pay out several billion dollars (Google says 3.5 to 4.6 billion), and will not see all of your theoretical $12 billion (could be even more), if they don’t go under from the massive payout, they may eventually break even, but it wont be for several years, if not decades, by then the climate of the world could change dramatically, and make the entire 'plan' fail, as an avid investor, its to much of a risk for me to even think of trying.

I see, so the insurance industry is in on it too? :lol:

Will it might be a shorter list for you if you listed who wasn't in on it.

I was clear in what I said. If you can't keep up, hit the back button. If you can't contribute, hit the back button.

calm down will, he was joking.:icare:

Weird shit happens, huh? I'd call that purely evasive.

Since the steel began to "Bend", we'll assume that the temperature in the building was somewhere around 2500 degrees farenheit. Paper burns at 451 degrees farenheit; That's a difference of 2049 degrees farenheit.

...And yet you tell me that there's some plausible way that the government was able to recover a paper passport from the wreckage? If the (Supposed) high temperature in the towers didn't burn the passport, then the explosion caused by the plane hitting one of the twin towers would have.

Here's something to think about. The engineers who worked on the WTC buildings in the early 70's over-specified the materials used. The core supports were made of high carbon indutrial steel which doesn't begin to weaken until exposed to temperatures in excess of 2500F for several hours. They even considered the possiblility of airplane collision. However, both towers collapsed within 90 minutes. It doesn't add up.

They only considered a 707 hitting them, but what is really different about a 707 and a 767? A few more gallons of jet fuel? A few feet more from wing to wing? Even with the 707 hitting them, you would have had the jet fuel fires and the fire-proofing getting blown off.

I guess they might have just looked at it from the point that the towers remained standing for some period of time after the crash, and did not instantly fall down.

Well that’s just flat wrong, as soon as steel reaches 2500F it is weaker, it does not magically get weaker soon after heating up, it gets weaker because it is heating up. Second the steel gets weaker much sooner then that, I’m not sure where you found your numbers, but try again.

Furthermore, I can’t find any source that says the vertical structure was made from high carbon steel, can you please site a source. In my mind, a hard, ridged steel would be a bad choice for something that needs to sway in the wind.

Didn't i send you out to make me a 60ft 6inch beam with your "3000 degree" propane torch? You done yet?

. Your wacky theoretical possiblities are going to be tough to prove.

Fastom, metal does that. You have to know that. I don't work with metals daily. Call it monthly. I've built plenty of specialized prototypes and done my share of steel, iron, aluminum work, sometimes torch or oven heating to avoid problems. One inch expansion over 10ft is nothing. Barely point 8%?

Still, my shadetree experience says it's unlikely the entire 60ft beam would expand uniformly. I'll leave it to others to work out how hot over how much distance might have been plausible given what we could see of the fires.

For myself, mostly dealing with frames and assemblies of heated metals that like to creep out of square, I keep thinking about a truss design and hot spots. As trusses these are multiple pieces of metal, not just one. it makes more sense to me that parts of the truss heated unevenly which would stress and deflect weaker (weakened) parts. This would be encouraged if some parts lost their fireproofing while others did not. It doesn't take much deflection somewhere in the middle of a 60ft length to send the ends way out of spec. It would try to unbend as it cooled but damage is already done at the end points. Fasteners, welds, etc. It'll likely cool as a bent and therefore shorter assembly with impaired fasteners. Not a good recipe.

As a tinkerer and son of another I've worked with "things" almost since I could walk. Making things, changing them, watching them fail - sometimes disastrously - and while I've never had anything to do with big metal buildings I am not in the least surprised by this failure of a complex structure of metal exposed to heat. It seems completely natural to me. What seems odd is the lack of this sense by others. Yet I've helped highly educated people repair things who were completely surprised by the behavior. Given there are persistent posters in this thread who I take to be a notch above myself in intelligence, I have to assume some lack of experience coupled with distrust of the system leads to this persistent assumption it can't have happened as described.

Going way back to my first posts, IMO, without physical evidence or at least very good documentation we aren't going to find anything useful here. (that's okay, not my thread) A theorist may be better served by searching for money, other motivations, and any people involved. Look for the bigger question of why the event happened instead of spending too much time fighting what is likely the Copernican argument suggeted by USTwo.

This point has been brought up several times, but never addressed. If there was a fire hot enought to cause millions of tons of steel to give in less than an hour, how did a passport from inside the plane survive?

Where was it found? It may have shot out with other parts and only been found much later somewhere within the area of ground zero. Everything near the buildings would be subject to big wind & movement after the collapse of such large structures. A passport would be quite vulnerable to these effects.

After the impact, did you notice the rain of debris from the planes and building, it may have been among that, further, no one keeps there passport in the open air, it’s in a holder, and possibly in a bag. Do we know the circumstance of finding the passport; was it inside of a bag on the street?


I have a bit of a nasty cough right now, but as soon as I go back to work, I’ll talk with the physical science dept, see if I can barrow some Bunsen burners. Obviously I can’t do a full scale, would a 1/10th scale convince you? Expanding a 6 foot steel rod by 0.6 inches?

You've seen enough 9/11 videos, will. You should be able to answer this yourself. What did you see when the towers were burning? There was smoke, yeah, people jumping, yeah, and....papers raining down. Lots of papers. Not on fire, but raining down. What did you see after the buildings collapsed? Dust, lots of dust. 2 buildings reduced to mostly dust. but when the dust settled what did you see? papers. fully intact 8 1/2 x 11 sheets of paper. not burnt, not burning, but just lying there. balance sheets, office memos, invoices. All kinds of office papers accross dozens and dozens of blocks. How did all these papers survive when buildings literally crumbled?

A passport is nothing but paper. And, as mentioned previously, it was most likely in a carry-on and ejected with a lot of other things when the plane, travelling at 500+ mph stopped suddenly.

For the first year there was a place on prince street one could go to and see all the pictures that were submitted by regular people that wandered around lower manhattan that day. There were lots of pictures I have seen only then and never seen again, some were wreckage of the planes on the ground, most were various pictures of the towers smoking and collapsing.

sometime around that time there was another gallery that showed something that I have never seen ever again and am not sure I want to. it was some photographer who photographed the more gruesome parts of that day, puddles of hunan remains from the jumpers, body parts of people which I assume were from the plane. the most incredible thing I saw that day was the pair of bound hands, disembodied from their owner, but still bound. they weren't charred, they weren't burnt. they just were a pair of disembodied hands still bound.

how did that survive intact? I assume the same way that lots of things just did. they just did.

YOU sir were very clear. You said it was an 'investment' in other words they were in on it or just don't want to know the truth because it makes them more money. IF you meant something else please clarify. You have made a lot of unproven and wild claims I don't see why this one would make you upset.

Will my boy you are wrong in this, time to take a deep breath and change that warped world view of yours.

Ustwo, Funny how its just as correct when reversed. Why that would be?