Steel (aluminum + iron, not just iron) is a decent conductor of heat, which is partly why it's used. Any fire that occurred would have had to be just that much warmer. Regardless, the uniformity of the collapse could never occur because the damage to the buildings was asymmetrical and fires do not burn symmetrically. Yet there went the building, collapsing into the path of most resistance symmetrically...
Hmmmm.......Steel=Aluminum + Iron, huh? Is that your final answer?
| Metal | Temperature - t - ([SUP]o[/SUP]F) | Thermal Conductivity - k - (Btu/(hr [SUP]o[/SUP]F ft)) |
| Admiralty Brass | 68 | 64 |
| Aluminum, pure | 68 | 118 |
| 200 | 124 | |
| 400 | 144 | |
| Aluminum Bronze | 68 | 44 |
| Antimony | 68 | 10.7 |
| Beryllium | 68 | 126 |
| Beryllium Copper | 68 | 38 |
| Bismuth | 68 | 4.9 |
| Cadmium | 68 | 54 |
| Carbon Steel, max 0.5% C | 68 | 31 |
| Carbon Steel, max 1.5% C | 68 | 21 |
| 752 | 19 | |
| 2192 | 17 | |
| Cartridge brass (UNS C26000) | 68 | 69.4 |
| Cast Iron, gray | 70 | 27 - 46 |
| Chromium | 68 | 52 |
| Cobalt | 68 | 40 |
| Copper, pure | 68 | 223 |
| 572 | 213 | |
| 1112 | 204 | |
| Copper bronze (75% Cu, 25% Sn) | 68 | 15 |
| Copper brass (70% Cu, 30% Zi) | 68 | 64 |
| Cupronickel | 68 | 17 |
| Gold | 68 | 182 |
| Hastelloy B | 6 | |
| Hastelloy C | 70 | 5 |
| Inconel | 70 - 212 | 8.4 |
| Incoloy | 32 - 212 | 6.8 |
| Iridium | 68 | 85 |
| Iron, nodular pearlitic | 212 | 18 |
| Iron, pure | 68 | 42 |
| 572 | 32 | |
| 1832 | 20 | |
| Iron, wrought | 68 | 34 |
| Lead | 68 | 20 |
| 572 | 17.2 | |
| Manganese Bronze | 68 | 61 |
| Magnesium | 68 | 91.9 |
| Mercury | 68 | 4.85 |
| Molybdenum | 68 | 81 |
| Monel | 32 - 212 | 15 |
| Nickel | 68 | 52 |
| Nickel Wrought | 32 - 212 | 35 - 52 |
| Niobium (Columbium) | 68 | 30 |
| Osmium | 68 | 35 |
| Phosphor bronze (10% Sn, UNS C52400) | 68 | 28.9 |
| Platinum | 68 | 42 |
| Plutonium | 68 | 4.6 |
| Potassium | 68 | 57.8 |
| Red Brass | 68 | 92 |
| Rhodium | 68 | 86.7 |
| Selenium | 68 | 0.3 |
| Silicon | 68 | 48.3 |
| Silver, pure | 68 | 235 |
| Sodium | 68 | 77.5 |
| Stainless Steel | 68 | 7-26 |
| Tantalum | 68 | 31 |
| Thorium | 68 | 24 |
| Tin | 32 | 36 - 39 |
| Titanium | 68 | 11 - 13 |
| Tungsten | 68 | 94 - 100 |
| Uranium | 68 | 14 |
| Vanadium | 68 | 35 |
| Wrought Carbon Steel | 32 | 34 |
| Yellow Brass | 68 | 67 |
| Zinc | - | 67 |
| Zirconium | - | 145 |
It doesn't explain anything about "structure fire". What, specifically would you like to know? I guess I misunderstood your statment. He was saying that the structural members in the towers would've acted as large "heat sinks" (meaning that there would be no way possible to get any ONE POINT of the structure hot enough to fail. My tire iron experiment was simply to demonstrate that you CAN heat up a section of steel and get it glowing hot while holding the other end in your hand.) All metals are good conductors of heat when compared to most non-metallic objects. However, steel is not that great of a conductor of heat when compared to other metals and I can definitively tell you that I've seen structural steel failures in "ordinary fires". It can, and DOES happen is all I'm saying. It's not "impossible" like some others on this board are attempting to suggest.
lol!
Apologies, we are on the same page more or less. I just misunderstood your point initially. I think the reason people cling to these things is because people don't like to think that bad, scary people can attack at any time for the most trivial of reasons (We gave middle easterner's so many reasons, it isn't even funny.). It removes a sense of control. It's alot more empowering to blame something you know than it is to accept that we aren't safe in some little bubble. When that little bubble of safety pops, you get stuff like this. I do find it funny that the same US Gov. that gets blamed for 9/11 can't balance a budget, avoid sex scandals, cover up Gitmo scandals, or effectively manage an education system; yet, they could somehow pull off the most devastating terrorist attack in this country's history, and then cover it up so well that the GP has no clue. I'd bank on a bunch of fanatics being the likely culprit, they have a bit of practice in the hijacking/blowing shit up department. Hell, this wasn't even the first attack on the WTC by radical Muslim folks. When you find fingerprints, dna, motive and a murder weapon that can all be linked to the same person; you don't go trying to find another person to blame for a crime. I'm in the same boat as you. I'm not trying to mislead anyone, just haven't seen anything that equates to more than speculation backed by unproven theories. If a conspiracy can be proven, I'll supply the rope myself.It doesn't explain anything about "structure fire". What, specifically would you like to know? I guess I misunderstood your statment. He was saying that the structural members in the towers would've acted as large "heat sinks" (meaning that there would be no way possible to get any ONE POINT of the structure hot enough to fail. My tire iron experiment was simply to demonstrate that you CAN heat up a section of steel and get it glowing hot while holding the other end in your hand.) All metals are good conductors of heat when compared to most non-metallic objects. However, steel is not that great of a conductor of heat when compared to other metals and I can definitively tell you that I've seen structural steel failures in "ordinary fires". It can, and DOES happen is all I'm saying. It's not "impossible" like some others on this board are attempting to suggest.
lol!
Ok, so everything I've said is complete b.s then? Well, then I guess you don't have to respond to me after this *Cough* Mr. "Steel=Aluminum+Iron" *Cough*. lmfao!!!!
Thermite has NOT been conclusively shown to be at the WTC site. There has been a few very common elements found in some of the dust samples (mainly sulfur, iron oxide [rust] and aluminum) which are also present in thermite. This proves nothing. These are VERY COMMON ELEMENTS!!!!!! Instead of debating you on this particular issue, I am just going to post a link. I'm sure you will dismiss it just like you did me and my 15 years of experience in this field. My friend, I've spent the last decade researching, debating and talking to experts in various fields. The VAST majority of firefighters and experts agree that the conspiracy "evidence" is shaky at best and most of the time deceptive. Why? I honestly can't tell you what motivates some people to further this type of misinformation. What's more, I can't figure out for the life of me why anyone would ignore experts who bring valid knowledge and experience to the table. I have NO interest in misleading anyone. Believe me, if I thought for ONE SECOND the govt. or anyone else besides al qaeda had something to do with this, I would be at the front of the line demanding heads on a platter! I lost 343 brothers that day (See my signature below). We all lost something that day! I have no interest in squelching the truth.
http://debunking911.com/thermite.htm
Posting stuff for the sheer sake of it I see. That was my mistake, it was late and I confused thermite and steel in my head, so apologies. Steel is still a decent conductor though and behaves extremely well in fire, which is why it forms the frame of every major skyscraper that exists.
I figured you misspoke, but you were basically saying I have no clue what I'm talking about. On the contrary. If I don't know about something, I keep my mouth shut. I was considered an expert in building collapse before 9/11, so I found your statement a little ironic. You should always be careful when you attempt to belittle someone else and make sure EVERYTHING you say is absolutely correct, lest you like like the fool.
The collapse appeared symmetrical mostly because of the angles and distances most of the video was shot from. Those buildings didn't collapse "symmetrically". They behaved pretty much as one (with engineering, building construction and collapse knowledge) would expect. Buildings don't typically topple over to one side. At least not when they are constructed in this manner. Yes, I'm sure someone will post some pics showing some reinforced concrete buildings that fell over on their sides in earthquakes. This is not the same thing! I realize I'm probably not going to convince you, and that's ok with me. I just hope you realize that you sound like a broken conspiracy theorist record! Where did your engineering or building collapse expertise come from again? They have been spouting these SAME EXACT THINGS for a decade now and STILL haven't come up with a shred of proof or even any REAL evidence that what they say is true. We all know there are some strange things that happened surrounding the events of 9/11. None of these things is proof of anything unless you can somehow tie them to 9/11 (especially things like the missing "trillions", or put options, etc.). Y'all talk about how Bush didn't have the sense to come in out of the rain, but somehow he and his minions managed to perpetrate the greatest conspiracy of all time! That alone should tell you how ridiculous the notion of our govt. perpetrating such a thing is! Yes, I said ridiculous! lol!
The Gulf of Tonkin wasn't perpetrated against our own country and citizens. Not the same thing. Trust me, if it could be proven that this was a conspiracy, you would have hundreds of thousands of angry firemen and probably police too. Gulf of Tonkin didn't occur on U.S. soil. This incident did! 3,000 people were murdered simply for getting out of bed and going to work that morning. If it was discovered that the govt. had anything to do with this, I believe it would mean civil war. Sorry, I just don't buy it. Show me some REAL evidence and perhaps I will change my mind. I don't believe such proof exists or we would've probably seen it by now.
Deprave said:
You're trying to claim the video evidence is deceptive. It's not. You have nothing. There have been large flaming buildings during earthquakes that don't fall over at all. And if they were going to, they would have fallen sideways in some fashion, because it is completely absurd to suggest buildings will fall into the path of most resistance and that the resistance can give away instantly and symmetrically. They collapsed at the speed a rock would fall if dropped. There was no resistance from something split seconds earlier was providing the necessary resistance to remain standing as they had since the planes impacted.The collapse appeared symmetrical mostly because of the angles and distances most of the video was shot from. Those buildings didn't collapse "symmetrically". They behaved pretty much as one (with engineering, building construction and collapse knowledge) would expect. Buildings don't typically topple over to one side. At least not when they are constructed in this manner. Yes, I'm sure someone will post some pics showing some reinforced concrete buildings that fell over on their sides in earthquakes. This is not the same thing! I realize I'm probably not going to convince you, and that's ok with me. I just hope you realize that you sound like a broken conspiracy theorist record! Where did your engineering or building collapse expertise come from again? They have been spouting these SAME EXACT THINGS for a decade now and STILL haven't come up with a shred of proof or even any REAL evidence that what they say is true. We all know there are some strange things that happened surrounding the events of 9/11. None of these things is proof of anything unless you can somehow tie them to 9/11 (especially things like the missing "trillions", or put options, etc.). Y'all talk about how Bush didn't have the sense to come in out of the rain, but somehow he and his minions managed to perpetrate the greatest conspiracy of all time! That alone should tell you how ridiculous the notion of our govt. perpetrating such a thing is! Yes, I said ridiculous! lol!
You need a new investigation as the original investigation was a clear and obvious white wash. The Presidents testimony was taken in secret, is classified and was not taken under oath. What the fuck?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/04/AR2006080401026.html
A wise man once told me,(my grandpa): "never blindly trust a man that asks/asserts to be trusted."
You can vote out corrupt officials; you can't do anything about a suicide bomber, he's a fanatic. That was the fear factor I spoke of. I can put the fear of death into a politician, not so much a man who is willing to take me out with him. A man that thinks he is dying for something is more frightening than a man who is in it for tangible gains, at least in my experience. I understand that most all people in power are there because they don't care who they step on. However, you still maintain a semblance of control in respect to elected officials. Your reasoning here is flawed though. You state that many politicians have been inherently dangerous. However, this does not prove that elected officials are all inherently evil. Past evidence doesn't apply to a system where something as variable as people are involved.. Just because hitler and stalin were bad, does not prove that our next president will be bad. Just because we have 5 bad presidents in a row, doesn't mean the 6th will be. What you are does not define who you are. Your sweeping generalizations don't change that.
This, I like. I am totally okay with speculation and personal belief of something. It's like a dick though; try to stick it down my throat, and I will take issue. I fall into a similar category to you, I think. I am not entirely bought into either idea. I find it hard to swallow that the country with the most impressive intelligence resources in the world didn't see this coming. However, I feel giving the people that run our shit credit for planning this would be overestimating their abilities. I don't buy into Osama being the mastermind either. He may have been some sort of accessory, but I don't think he could have pulled this off. Plus the way his death and subsequent burial went down never sat right with me. Plus, given our (The US') level of meddling in the middle east for the better part of a century at least, can't be engendering any desire to ship us gift baskets. So a foreign country seems rather plausible, all things considered. Sadly, it will never be definitively proven in my lifetime I'd bet.
As to the fear bit, that's entirely opinon based. I will admit that is entirely my opinion, and may not be held by all. In that realm, your lack of concern regarding terrorism is entirely valid.
The collapse appeared symmetrical mostly because of the angles and distances most of the video was shot from. Those buildings didn't collapse "symmetrically". They behaved pretty much as one (with engineering, building construction and collapse knowledge) would expect. Buildings don't typically topple over to one side. At least not when they are constructed in this manner. Yes, I'm sure someone will post some pics showing some reinforced concrete buildings that fell over on their sides in earthquakes. This is not the same thing! I realize I'm probably not going to convince you, and that's ok with me. I just hope you realize that you sound like a broken conspiracy theorist record! Where did your engineering or building collapse expertise come from again? They have been spouting these SAME EXACT THINGS for a decade now and STILL haven't come up with a shred of proof or even any REAL evidence that what they say is true. We all know there are some strange things that happened surrounding the events of 9/11. None of these things is proof of anything unless you can somehow tie them to 9/11 (especially things like the missing "trillions", or put options, etc.). Y'all talk about how Bush didn't have the sense to come in out of the rain, but somehow he and his minions managed to perpetrate the greatest conspiracy of all time! That alone should tell you how ridiculous the notion of our govt. perpetrating such a thing is! Yes, I said ridiculous! lol!
You need to review your axial beam buckling. Only one side/corner of the tower incurred a direct structural failure from the impact. If this was the only failure then the top of the tower should rock off leavening the remainder of the tower intact.