fastom

The only way the material below is in motion is if it was already "failing", ie: blown up, cut or whatever. Otherwise the falling stuff above gets stopped or slowed by the still sturdy structure below.

My belief is that if the steel actually did soften and weaken ... and i think it is absurd... the structure would have maybe squashed a bit at that point... they'd have to renumber the elevator buttons, 77, 78, 79-81 crawlspaces, 82, 83, etc. Or because the steel weakened and had missing pieces at the side the planes hit while the other end was unaffected the top of the tower would tip off to that side and they'd have a 79 story WTC. It would still have been a nasty mess.

But nope, floors that people were walking around on just crumbled into dust for no reason. Blame them damn Muslims,eh?

balderdash111

Willravel, fastom, etc

I am choosing to ignore this thread for a while, as it never really seems to get anywhere. Call that what you like.

However, I thought you might want to take a look at another forum populated by scientists, engineers, chemists and the like - not laymen like most/all of us. They mainly talk about astronomy, but they do spend a good deal of time discussing 9/11 theories. This is the same forum I linked to in the other thread about intelligent life on other planets (eek - where is my tinfoil hat??).

I should warn you that they do not support the various alternative theories about 9/11, but they do generally treat them fairly and the debate is usually even tempered and scientific. They are skeptics, so they believe nothing without evidence. They ask for (and give) citations and supporting evidence in all of their discussions.

You might find it interesting to see what they think about your theories on thermite, controlled demolition and the like. I think they have seen most of the arguments out there, so I imagine yours have been through the system already. Like TFP, they tend to quickly dismiss people who are making arguments they think have already been made and refuted, so check out the search engine before you post.

Enjoy!

http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

fastom

We get better responses here.
That forum still seems to be populated by blind followers.

Ustwo

balderdash111 - Nice forum, gives me hope for humanity

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

balderdash111

Wow, I double dog dare you to say that over there....

Also, FYI (and I really am leaving this for now)

The NIST has released a FAQ addressing many of the exact issues raised here. I guess they received so many inquiries that they felt they needed to respond.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

*Edit* The lack of response to this FAQ by the "911 Truth" crowd on this thread seems telling. Anyone?

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

Ustwo

Seems like a very scientifically knowledgeable group. I need to find a forum like that for ecology and biology.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Ch'i

That's a fantastic idea. I think I'll start ignoring things I don't want to hear too. Then I won't have to hear all that liberal crap, and mumbo jumbo that doesn't really effect my daily life. Fantastic!

...

Yeah I was looking for a science area awhile ago and never found it. I think there should be.

Deltona Couple

I ask you this, you say that if the upper sections fell down part way onto the lower sections, the lower sections would be able to hold them....then consider this as a basic, though not equally perfect standpoint.

If you were standing up straight, and you had a person weighing say 200 lbs held abover your head by your hands. Normally you could hold that weight above you, (albeit not for a sustained time period) now what would happen if you suddenly allowed that 200 lb person to drop down to your shoulders? wouldn't it be safe to assume that the sudden drop from above your head, to your shoulders, that you would NOT be able to hold that person any longer? Your legs would "collapse" from the SUDDEN change in location of the weight.

I was curious about this, so I talked to my neighbor who is in construction, and he said that I am correct that in construction, structures that have suden changes in load force can cause every underlying structure to fail, and as such, in an ever increasing change, i.e. 20 floors drop their weight onto the lower floor, it fails, dropping 21 floors of weight onto the lower floor, it fails, dropping 22 floors of weight.....etc.

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

Willravel

Well let's fix your problem. If I could actually hold 1000 pounds above my head, and 200 pounds dropped from only about 10-12 feet, I think I could handle it.

More importantly, why would the top floor fall first, when it would obviosuly be the impact point that was the weakest?

Dilbert1234567

I’ve tried to leave, but I can’t let this ignorance live here.

In will example, a 200lb object falls 10 feet; first, we must convert into better units, 90 kg and 3 meters.

For the force that impacts your shoulders, F=ma, force = mass x acceleration. Mass is constant, 90 kg. Acceleration is a bit different, how fast does the object stop as it hits your shoulders. An object falling 3 meters will be going 7.66 m/s if we are talking about 2 rigid bodies, such as a building, it will stop almost instantly, as apposed to a face in an airbag, which slows the head down protecting it. In our case it is fully reasonable to expect the object to come to rest in under 50 ms in reality, v=at, velocity = acceleration x time, gives us the acceleration of 153 m/s. back to f=ma, f = 13801 Newton’s, converting Newton’s to pounds, we get 3,102 pounds. Congratulations will, you have 2 broken legs.


As for where the collapse started, it did start at the point of impact, or close there of, if you watch the videos, you see that the tops section above the impact, falls one floor, collides with the next floor down, and pushes right through it as if it was not there, this is because the sure amount of force smashing through the floor. The forces of a falling building are staggering.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Willravel

Well that works in a perfect mathematical world, but it lacks many variables that were present in the wtc. There was inconsistent resistence due to the theoretical loss of strength from the fire. Some of the supports were as strong as the day they were built and would have offered a great deal of resistence. Some may have been weakened. Those aren't taken into account in the broken leg equasion. I think we should leave the legs thing alone for a while and return to the scene of the crash, as it's an odd comparison and could very easily end up getting confusing.

I think we can all agree that there was an original collapse that had nothing to do with another floor collapsing. The initial failure was attributed to mostly fire damage over time, and some impact damage, yes? Then we should look at the first collapse first.

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html

Deltona Couple

Tis is a quote from one of many releases discussing the world trade center located at : http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm .


... it is well known that the maximum temperature that can be reached by a non-stoichiometric hydrocarbon burn (that is, hydrocarbons like jet-fuel, burning in air) is 825 degrees Centigrade (1520 degrees Fahrenheit). ...

now if the WTC towers metal trusses were designed to retain their rigidity up to as stated in this quote:
This being said, the jet fuel temperatures could have reached 1520 deg F., which is ABOVE the 1022 deg F stated in the above quote.....this reaching higher than the required temperature for the steel trusses to exceed 80 or 90% of their load capacity.

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

Willravel

And you believe that this temperature (1520 F) could have been reached in a relatively enclosed area in under an hour, and sustained that until the collapse?

Ustwo

Deltona Couple it won't matter what NIST or almost every structural engineer said willravel knows all on this, and is the true expert. You have no chance, all your base are belong to him.

(run while you can!)

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Deltona Couple

In all honesty? yes I do believe that. The statement was that jet fuel can burn in an OPEN area at that temperature, in the case of the WTC fire, the fuel was in an enclosed area, which science has proven that anything burning in an enclosed area is more than able to reach well above normal temperatures. It doesn't matter how long the steel was at a higher temperature, all it has to do is reach that temperature for a short time period to fail. considering everything else inside the building that was also burning, I do believe that it is possible.

I personally think that in the perspective of Acham's razor(Forgive the spelling) that it is much easier to believe the terrorist plot, and burning of the buildings causing their collapse, than to believe that our government for several years has been setting the idea up, finding some way to get explosive experts to strategicly bring explosives into the building and place them in exact locations for a controlled explosion, convince american pilots to murder innocent civilians, including themselves, by flying multiple planes into different buildings, then convincing mideastern people to hijack another plane, allowing the passengers to call their love-ones on the phone DESCRIBING the terrorists, and then have the plane crash in Pennsylvania, and for the remaining 5 years keep EVERYONE involved in this plot to be quiet....hmmm.

Or are you convinced that our government got all the people that helped plot it all and shot them the day after so they couldn't confess?

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

Willravel

And you have the right to beleive that's possible. I do not. I don't see there beeing enough time or the right circumstances to collapse both buildings at near free fall speeds. If it had burned for 14 hours, and we'd seen warping coming from the center, and we'd seen black smoke, then maybe.
Well they had most of us convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass drestuction for a few years there. They had us convinced that a lone gunman killed JFK, despite the forensic evidence. They had us believe that tho American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin were attacked by North Vietnamese gunboats. They had us convinced that Agend Orange simply removed the foilage from trees and had no adverse effect on humans.

How long did it take Germans to they realize that the Reichstag Fire wasn't set by Communists, but was in fact set by Nazis like General Franz Halder in order to force the populace to bestow power on the executive force in their government? Is that a Godwin, evne though it is a case in history where the populace was fooled into thinking one pary was responsible for destroying a natiaonal landmark that eventually lead them to war, when it was in fact another?

Occam's Razor is a very fine tool for deductive reasoning, but it is not a law by any means. Sometimes the complicated answer is the right one.

Also, your suggested conspiracy is not the same one I profess to believing. The passengers and pilots were never found in the rubble, including the terrorists (several of which have been found to be alive and kicking elsewhere with alybies for 9/11), it was never confirmed that the planes that hit the WTC were the ones that went missing, and the calls from the planes have long since been proven fake. The information is all right there.

Deltona Couple

So you are saying that all the calls from the plane that went down in Pennsylvania were proven to be fake? I find that not only difficult, but impossible to believe considering the family members of those who were ON that flight say otherwise. I ask where your information backing this claim is at?

seen warping from the center??? Unless we had x-ray vision, nobody could have seen any warping from the center. For all we know, the center could have collapsed partially a while before the towers went down, and no VISIBLE signs would have been noted from outside.

So because of these things you are convinced that our current administration would do this to our own people? I don't exactly believe our government is perfect, far from it, but I do NOT see them doing such a massive attack to the US, with such extensive loss of civilian life.

considering the extensive damage from impact, and ensuing fire, I wouldn't expect ANY remains to be found.

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

Willravel

They were either lies (in the case of Ted Olsen), or they were made from the ground.

http://physics911.ca/org/modules/web...php?blog_id=65
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/a...honecalls.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

The WTC towers were desidnged to sway slightly with the wind, as they are skyscrapers. The morning of 9/11/01 was windy. It's possible for video records to determine if the building may have swayed more than normal, suggesting that the rigidity of the building was decreasing. That's jost one example. Another would be the holes created by the planes. The outside of the building was aluminum, something that mels long before steel. As the holes created by the planes would have acted as vents for the smoke and the heat, we can expect them to have warped or shown some heat damage. I mean we didn't but it would be one place to look.
If I ever said that I was convinced that this administration was guilty of this, I apologize for the confusion. I am not conviced that they didn't do it. I hope you understand the difference. I don't know who or what was responsible for the collapse. I have my theories and suspicians, but I don't have anywhere near enough information to form solid, factual conclusions.
Well they did find one of the passports from the hijackers. If a passport can survive that, then bones for dental records or limbs for dna records could have been found.

What do you think about some of the accoused hijackers being found elsewhere, alive and well?

Deltona Couple

Some VERY interesting articles, which I will read fully when I have much more time than a few minutes. This being said, what I HAVE read in the article doesn't say that it was IMPOSSIBLE to have been cel phone calls, just improbable that they would get a good signal. Personally I have made cel phone calls from airline flights (don't tell!!) that were on approach. Much of the information that I have read was that a large portion of the time that the transponder was still active, it showed Flight 93 was not at cruising altitude, but MUCH lower, and erratic. Now your statement that some of them were made from the ground...for what purpose? to terrorize their own families? Many of the people said that they could hear the background noises of other people on the plane. And what about the phone calls that WERE made from the AirPhones? They would have HAD to be made while in flight, and the tracking information agrees with that.

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

Willravel

Making a call on approach suggests being at a low altitude in a suburban or city area, which are likely to have really good coverage compared to some woods. Why would you make fake calls (actually, force people to make phone calls) from the ground if you were trying to cover up the dissapearance of people by faking a plane crash?

Thank you for the respectful discussion. Let me know when you read the articles. They answered quite a few of my questions.

Seaver

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ta..._911_0907.html

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and is filmed planning duck activities... it must be a Moose?

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Willravel

Seaver do you know if those hijackers were the ones that meraculously survived? Also, how is your arabic?

Dilbert1234567

guess again.

as I see it, a floor in close proximity to the crash (a bit above) collapsed due to all manner of things, the heat, the fire, the expansion of the horizontal girders (Thermal Expansion Is Real), ect, this collapse cause the floors above the impact to fall. as they impacted the floors below, they buckled, as seen in the pictures provided by will, however, each floor hit harder and harder because it was falling faster and faster, eventually this force was greater than what the floors below the impact could handle and they collapsed, after that it pancaked into its self.

I spoke with my physics professor (PHD) and he corrected me on the time for an impact of 2 rigid bodies, it is closer to a fraction of a ms, not 50 ms, so the forces felt by the falling weight onto will's shoulders would be on an about 100 times as strong. of course bending of wills legs to spread the impact out would allow him to catch it, however, buildings don’t have nice springy legs.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Willravel

I think you need ro reread my post, then reread yours. You actually agree with me!!! You blame the original collapse on the heat, the fire, and the expansion. There's no shame in agreeing with me.

My point was that the very first collapse was due to something other than a collapse (otherwise it wouldn't be the first collapse). While what we blame might differ slightly, I think we do agree in this fact.

And I know thermal expansion is real.

Ch'i

So a fire burning at 1520 degrees F in one section of the WTC caused the entire building to free-fall with absolutely no resistance from the rest of the buildings frame? Okay.

Dilbert1234567

The first collapsed floor was not due to a preceding collapsed floor... of course, unless we have some freaky causality loop from star trek . I agree with you, however, your statement is ambiguous; the first collapse does have something to do with another collapse, the collapse that follows it. We agree that [some cause] caused a single floor or several close together cause the initial collapse that eventually brought down the building.

Yeah I know you know thermal expansion was real, fastom had earlier brought that into question… my professor got a kick out of reading fastom post, as did his colleagues, and the rest of the science department

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

fastom

I'm glad to humor your professor... people that are afraid to put the kettle on the stove because "thermal expansion" would knock all the other pots off.

1500 degrees is a lot if you have your hot tub cranked up that high. In the real world beyond the internet car exhaust systems go beyond that with turbocharged engines without the car collapsing , without melting or drooping the pipes the exhaust goes through and without the tailpipe expanding and stabbing into the car behind you. Expansion isn't measured with a yardstick.

The heat that would be contained in the building would be just like a barbeque , it would burn your steak but won't collapse the rack down into the coals. Most of that heat would escape out the windows. But oddly enough there wasn't enough heat to shatter most of the windows.

Tell them science is weird.

Reading back a bit (this post died for a couple weeks)...

"I personally think that in the perspective of Acham's razor(Forgive the spelling) that it is much easier to believe the terrorist plot, and burning of the buildings causing their collapse, than to believe that our government for several years has been setting the idea up, finding some way to get explosive experts to strategicly bring explosives into the building and place them in exact locations for a controlled explosion, convince american pilots to murder innocent civilians, including themselves, by flying multiple planes into different buildings, then convincing mideastern people to hijack another plane, allowing the passengers to call their love-ones on the phone DESCRIBING the terrorists, and then have the plane crash in Pennsylvania, and for the remaining 5 years keep EVERYONE involved in this plot to be quiet....hmmm.

Or are you convinced that our government got all the people that helped plot it all and shot them the day after so they couldn't confess?"


Acham sounds like a Muslim name
Who is saying anybody got shot? You make a bunch of assumptions off what you are told is the true story. It would likely involve people outside the government like Mr Silverstein.

Deltona Couple

At no point did I actually SAY someone got shot. I was merely entertaining the "conspiracy" idea of it. I disagree with your exact statement of "...You make a bunch of assuptions off what you are told is the true story..." Unless you were there durring the alledged planning by our government, then you have to admitt that YOU are also making assumptions. If it were in fact 100% true, then we wouldn't even be HAVING this discussion, we would be watching the court cases on TV. So technically, I am making assumptions of what someone elses BELIEF and OPINIONS are. just as you are making assumptions on your own BELIEF and OPINION.

I am all for open discussion and debate. I can tell by my own writing and syntax that Willravel is a more educated man than me, but in the same sence, the pope is more educated than me as well, and I don't follow him blindly either. As an intelligent being, I am bound by my own drive to look and read what information I can find, or be given, and make my own call on what I do or don't believe. We cannot just walk around believing everything that is said. We must ALWAYS question things, and learn from what we find.

In the short time I have been on this forum, I have developed a rather large respect for Willravel. I may not agree with his standpoints, but none-the-less, I respect his intelligence, AND the fact that he usually prefaces his statements with DOCUMENTATION. I did read your articles and though they do make for good questioning of the calls, they do not convince me that it was impossible. Improbable? maybe. I asked my service provider about the range of the average cellular phone from around 2000. The technician told me that the TDMA phones of that time had an EFFECTIVE range of about 4 miles in order to maintain an acceptable signal. this being said, the AVERAGE range between towers is about 2.5 to 3 miles. Using algebra (hey, I said you were MORE educated...not that I was stupid...lmao) that means that in orderto maintain an accepted level of phone signal, the maximum verticle height would be 3.8 miles to maintain signal. converted to feet...20,064 feet.
So it could be possible, if the plane were below that level, to maintain an acceptable connection. Now I will need to double check, but I do believe that durring the tracking of Flight 93 durring a majority of the flight, their altitude was within that area, but I may be wrong. Willravel, can you accept that IF they were at that altitude that they COULD have made a good cel phone call?

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

Dilbert1234567

Luckily we have engineers who design cars with thermal expansion in mind so things don’t fall apart, however, the 2 towers were poorly designed, and the expansion of the horizontal girders caused the collapse. As for how far things expand, it depends on the length of them, a pot will not expand more than a mm or 2, where as a railroad track will expand a great deal, even in the sun.

Please see the picture in this article, and read the article, its a good explanation:
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/IYear...malExpans.html


fyi, its spelled Occam’s razor, the simple lest solution is usually the correct one.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Willravel

Is it a Godwin if I call you a grammar nazi?

Deltona Couple

Oh there you go Willravel, comment about HIS post, but ignore mine huh?....why you.... (LMFAO Said in jest of course!)

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

Willravel

While it is statistically improbable, yes it is possible for maybe a very short, crappy quality conversation to have gone through. The problem is that it wasn't a short, crappy-quality conversation. There were many, long, clear conversations. I'm left wondering, why don't I get good service at my house, but these people can have conversations moving at hundred of miles per hour, miles in the air?

A friend of mine has a plane (yes, some of my friends ar rich). The last time we went up, I asked him how my phone would affect his eqwuiptment. He basically said that I was an idiot, and that we would not come down crashing into the ground if I opened up my Samsung and ordered a pizza. I decided to test a few things. I made 20 calls at varied altitudes, over Northern California (which is wooded and sparsely populated, like a lot of the areas that the planes flew over). The only call that went through was at 300 feet and it went through for about 3 seconds, just long enough for me to give the infamous line: "Can you hear me now?". No phone calls went through over a few hundred feet, and my phone is nothing to sneeze at.

Deltona Couple

Well obviously I cannot attest to the situation, I have been able to use my cel phone while waiting for clearance to land at MCO airport. I am assuming that the average flight altitude while waiting for clearance is well above 300 feet. I have been told that SOME and I do say SOME airlines have an on-plane transponder for cel phone usage, although I have not been able to find anything in print to support this, and seriously doubt that Flight 93 had one. perhaps my flight did? I don't know for sure. But even so, as the math has shown, it is very possible for someone to have a good connection at up to 20,000 feet of altitude, even with the TDMA phones commonly in use at that time.

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

Willravel

*Willravel blushes so much he passes out*

Dilbert1234567

I’m not trying to be a Grammar Nazi, I was just stating the correct way to spell the word incase some people had never heard of Occam’s razor, so they could look it up themselves.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

fastom

I am really, really aware of thermal expansion and use it to advantage all the time. We are still talking tiny distances, not the tower expanding out over the Bronx. Another thing that seems to confuse some of you is flame temperature vs adjacent steel temperature. The steel ain't burning and heat is picked up from the flame but is also radiated out from the steel. Maybe an experiment can be tried if you have a stove with gas burners. Turn the stove on and heat your frying pan. Crank 'er up, no eggs to burn. Let it bake like that for an hour. Use the thermometer like ya stick in the Thanksgiving turkey to get a temperature reading. Now stick the thermometer into the burners flame and see if it's maybe any hotter.

Buy your replacement thermometer before Thanksgiving.

Phone calls... Mom it's me, Mark Bingham!

Dilbert1234567

some pictures:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Arrangment.jpg
This shows a top down view of a floor. 60 feet separate the edge of the building and the elevators
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...Eagar/fig5.gif
This picture (Not To Scale) shows how the 2 are connected by several long struts, (picture calls them floor joist) each being approximately 60 feet long, of solid steel. The struts rest upon the angle clip, also known as a gusset plate. The structural integrity of the floor is solely based on them resting on top of that ledge. From what I have gathered gusset plates are 4 x 2 x 3/8 inches.

Ok now onto thermal expansion of these struts. 60 feet of building grade steel. Building grade steel has a thermal expansion coefficient of 1.2 x10^-5 or so says my physics book. According to http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html the steel never heated past 750C no where near enough to melt it. A 60 foot beam heated to 750C from 20 C will expand by a little over 6 inches. If the fires were all uniform, the structure would have expanded at about the same rate, but the fires were not uniform, there were points of hotness and points of coolness, depending on the supply of oxygen and fuel, this discontinuity was the major cause of the weekend structure.

Take this scenario, 2 beams heated to 750C while a third beam in the middle is only heated to 250C. The 2 outer beams will expand by 6 inches, while the center beam will only expand by 2 inches, a difference of 4 inches. the outer beams having no where to grow will push the outer wall out by 6 inches, where as the center will expand by 2, but its outer wall is pushes out 6 inches, leaving a 4 inch gap, now since the gusset plate is only 2 inches deep, it just fell off the plate and that section of floor collapsed, all because of a 500C difference. This impact would then stress the already weekend lower floor, causing the inevitable collapse.

Now if we go backwards we can find the exact difference in temperature we need to get 2 inches of separation, it turns out it is 231.5 degrees C, in a building fire it is easy to get pockets of heat, from the flow of fuel and wind. Unfortunately in the real event took place in 3d and is much more complex than this example, but the concept is still the same, the little gusset plates and the uneven spread of the fire was the towers downfall. Furthermore, it would actually take less than 2 inches to make the gusset plates fail, as the weight is placed closer and closer to the edge of the gusset plates, the forces acting on the gusset plates increase due to leverage.


Doing so would not only damage my thermometers, but also my nice pots and pans. however, over the course of an hour, the pan would heat up to the maximum temperature of the flame, although it would take a while (the fires burned for a while in WTC as well) but touching the pan with a thermometer would not conduct the heat very well, so the reading from a kitchen thermometer would read much lower then the real value. as for a thermometer directly in the flame, it would read the maximum temperature of the flame quickly, due to its low mass and the high abundance of heat from the flame.

Although your example is asinine, it still serves, to show you have little concept of heat, temperature, and science. Due to the steels high specific heat capacity, it would heat up slower then most of its surroundings, meaning that they would radiate to the steel, not the other way around. Heat always flows from masses of higher temperature to lower temperature, for the most part; all of the heat would be flowing into the steel, not out of it, keeping it nice and toasty.


Temperature

Heat
for all that don’t know who mark is, he is one of the passengers on flight 93, and was alleged to have rushed the cockpit with others to bring it down, making fun of a dead guy is a new low for you fastom.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

fastom

Sorry if that's seen as making fun of the dead guy. I am pointing out how oddly worded that is. Like it's scripted, like a sitcom where they have to keep emphasizing the story line so inattentative people can follow it. Maybe you normally state your name when calling your mother? I don't know of anybody who does.

SIX INCHES!!!!!! Over a 60 foot span? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

The frying pan would radiate heat, it wouldn't get to flame temperature. Neither would the steel in a building.
The biggest problem with that whole theory is the crowds of WTC workers at the window sills on the damaged floors just before the tower falls. I'm not sure what newpaper you get but in today's National Post (Canada) there is a 9/11 retrospective that has such a picture. You'd think they'd ditch the jackets if it were even 700 degrees!

Better yet in the one article a firefighter mentions getting up to the 29th floor when the fire captain orders them to clear the building. Why was that? Getting down 29 floors certainly took more than a few seconds so he didn't feel the building start to crumble. What warning did they have?

Dilbert1234567

Uh, yup it can, and it does, time and time again, experimentally in the lab. (Science is cool like that.)
actually it will get very close to it if you leave it in the flame long enough.

Once again, you don’t get it; Temperature is a measure of the average energy contained in the microscopic degrees of freedom of a system. i.e. the amount of energy of the molecules within the beam, if I say the beam is 700F, that means if we were to break up the beam, overall the average temp would be 700F, some would be less, some would be more., obviously the outer parts, would be colder then the inner parts, because they are farther away from the fire, and closer to the wind. The average temperature of the floor could be 700F, the inside 850F, and the out side 150F, then, with wind on the out side of the building, it would still be quite chilly. They were not in the center because it was hot; the out side was cool though.

As for the diction, I’ve said some weird things when I’m on my cell with my mother, especially if there are interferences over the line. Some times I have to say my name over and over again until she hears me. She can’t tell by my voice because it is garbled, so my full name does get the message across. This is a rare occurrence, once or twice a month, but it does happen for me. I’m not sure how great the cell reception is at altitude, this may be the reason. Have you heard the tapes, or just read the transcripts? Do you have a link to the tapes?

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Willravel

The source of the heat was the fire, not the beams. In order for the beams to be 1,500F, the fire needs to be at least that hot consistently enough for the heat to be transfered across the system of steel beams. Have you ever opened your stove at 500F? It's really hot. So hot that one would have difficulty breathing if one stuck his head too close to the open stove. Imagine that stove was 100,000 square feet, was over 3 times as hot as that 500F stove, and the only real opening was a hole about the size of a plane and was pretty far from any entrance/exit. Wouldn't you guess that:
1) the heat inside the building would make it impossible for a human to make it from the stairs or the elevator to the opening and
2) most of the heat and exhaust from the flames would be pouring out of the opening?