Hi, Im new here so please dont flame me ;)

would the kerosene not have been 'burnt off' to a great percentage during the huge fireball upon the second planes impact? The intensity of the heat would only be brief as much, or even the vast majority of the fule source would have been expended. This could be seen by people actually being seen standing at the 'entry hole' on the first tower not long after the crash, so it was certainly not 'that' hot.

How could it cause such damage to the buildings?

The contents of the buildings on the floors where it burned were only standard material such as office equipment.

The massive steel structure would have only been exposed to intense heat for a short period of time and only in a localised area, most of the metal girders wont have come in to contact with any heat on virtually most of the floors.

The pentagon..........

How could kerosene 'vapourise' titanium and steel in a very short time?

It failed to vapourise office equipment at the 'entry' area??

In a car explosion the gasoline does not 'vapourise' the very thin and light sheet metal work on its body. It twists and distorts it, it does this to the frame also. Most of the metal work does not even melt! It certainly does not vapourise. Only real thin bodywork melts to nothing after a time.

If fire has never caused building to fall down before, how did it do it on 9/11 ?

If kerosene has never caused titanium/steel engines to vapourise before, how did it do it on 9/11?

Cheers,

Yes most of the fuel would have burnt off very quicky. However, anything combustible within the area of the fire ball would certainly have caught on fire. Imagine igniting just a couple of gallons of fuel in a room full of desks, carpet, paper, computers, people wearing clothes, ceiling tiles etc. I think you will agree that there will be a serious fire even thought the couple of gallons of fuel has mostly burnt off in a relatively short space of time. The combustible materials in the area become the fuel to feed the fire. Now multiply that to include several thousand gallons of fuel and several floors of offices full of the same items, and Im sure you will see that large fires burning at high temperatures are inevitable. These fires were burning and continuing to spread from the momelt of impact until the collapse started, so the affected parts of the building were exposed to high temperatures for the whole time.

A large passenger jet slamming into the building at high speed will produce an incredible amount of damage to the structure which will seriously weaken the buildings strength in the impact area. Now add the fires which further weaken the remaining support structure in the impact area and failure of the structure in that area becomes very likely.

Covered above.

Agreed, but once the failure of the structure in the impact area occured and collapse began, each floor below the impact area was unable to support the mass of the floors above crashing into them as the load bearing capacity of the floor trusses was exceeded. As each floor collapsed, the next floor had to bear the weight of all of those above it.

Pleny of buildings have collapsed due to fire. The unique think about the WTC was that a massive amount of damage had been caused by the impact of the passenger jets.

How many cars have been seen slamming into buildings at the same speed as the passenger jets? The amount of energy transference that takes place in such a high speed collision will cause totally different damage patterns and effects than a car involved in a road crash which involves the fuel tank igniting.

Engine parts and other aircraft debris were recoverd at the pentagon.

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

Thanks for the reply, :)

Im interested to know which steel framed sky scrapers have fallen due to fire and how long the fires burned for before the fall?

None until 9/11.

But would a plane not simply be shredded in to ribbons upon impact due to the massive steel beams, some what like a fly hitting a car windsheild?

The buildings were over-designed to allow for this kind of event, but yet both failed and within such a short time of eash other?

I wouldn't know if it would, but yes they where over protected. They could take 2 plane hits in each tower even! And I don't get how the goverment thought they could get away with this -.-.
--ScarFAce--

Actually no. Your analogy is way of. The facade of the wtc was aluminium. And the steel beams where bolted and welded up together 30 years ago.

The wall of the WTC was strong yes. But so was the 100ton Boeing flying at 500MPH.

J

So the bolts and welds had become 'worn or defective' then???

My father is a welder, I will ask him to bring me down to his office and interview some of the people in charge there, and maybe record it. Because I don't think that would matter much if it was a old weld. I mean yes, it would be weaker maybe but not that much if you think about it. But I wouldn't know, soo again tomorrow I will try and meet with some of them.
--ScarFace--

The perimeter columns beneath the facade were not aluminum. I mean, you can put aluminum siding up around a brick house. Doesn't make the brick walls beneath it any less structurally sound.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

Trident, thanks for reading my post and responding.

Scarface wrote:

And before 9/11 no fully fuelled passenger jets had crashed into into any steel framed skyscrapers at high speed.

trident, your original post asked:

You were not specific about 'skyscrapers'. But examples of steel framed buildings that have collapsed due to fire only, look here:


http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

This shows that steel structures can collapse when exposed to serious fire damage.

Again, I have to emphasise that it was the cumulative effect of the damage caused to the structure at impact and the fires that led to the collapse. Arguably the building may possibly have been able to withstand one or the other, but not both.

As Jarroyo correctly points out, this analogy is not quite right. Using the formula for kinetic energy transfer, E=0.5mvsquared where m is the mass of the object in motion and v is its velocity, the energy produced by a 100 tons travelling at 500mph is vastly greater than a fly with a mass of far less than 1gm hitting a windscreen at around 70mph.

Tank armour, which is much thicker and stronger than the steel used in the WTC is defeated by KE projectiles weighing a few kgs. The penetration of sometimes over a metre thickness of toughened armour is achieved purely by the KE transfer of a high speed solid inert (no explosive content) projectile. So it is no surprise that a 100 tons of jet travelling at 500mph penetrated the WTC and caused considerable damage to the structure.

The buildings were designed to withstand impact of a 707 flying carrying little fuel and flying at much slower speeds. It should also be borne in mind, that this would by definition be theoretical until such an event occurred for real. The impacts on 9/11 involved larger aircraft, fully fuelled and travelling at much higher speeds than originally anticipated by the designers. Remember, the Titanic was supposedly unsinkable until it was proved otherwise.

The planes were not fully fueled. You need to get your facts straight.

She said the facades were aluminum, which is deceptive.

You do know that the perimeter walls were made of steel covered in aluminum?

It's hard to imagine that she doesn't know that. I mean, how can you know about the aluminum, but not know about the steel underneath.

Avenger, thank you for your response to my post above.

Fair enough, the term 'fully fuelled' is misleading, although not intentionally so on my part. But you will agree that the planes contained a significant amount of fuel that had not been dumped or consumed prior to impact and the planes were travelling at speeds much higher than anticipated by the designers?

Well I can't speak for Jarrayo's statement or any intent to deceive. I was just agreeing that the fly/windscreen analogy was not appropriate and went on to explain why. I referred to steel in my post, not aluminium facades, so you may want to take that one up with Jarrayo, not me.

You should not have taken up for her in the first place.

Prior to impact? My, aren't you a slippery eel. A significant amount was consumed in the explosions.

The thing about the speed of the plane I'll have to look into.

Avenger wrote:

Slippery eel? Lol! Not trying to be slippery at all Avenger! By this i was referring to the amount of fuel that remained within the planes fuel tanks, i.e., that which had not been consumed during their flight to the WTC. I have already said in an earlier post above that much of the fuel would have been consumed on impact. So not really sure what you are suggesting here.

just a point i thought i ought to make here steel looses half its strentgh at 150 degrees

:lol: :lol: :lol:

what universe are YOU from?

A universe with a crappy strong force!

edit: actually weak force? I forget my elementary forces :(

guys im not joking tho seriously i have seen somewhere (think it was on that bbc thing about 9/11 in febuary) that steel looses lots of its strength at 150 degrees. if you can disprove it then fine i won't argue

Look at a few videos of both towers being destroyed and all thought of pancaking floors, girders weakened by fire, etc becomes totally, totally redundant. Those floors were blown to smithereens! Into FINE dust. No floors dropped. Just explosion after explosion after explosion after.......

Is http://www.ce.ntu.edu.tw/photo/building/bl...0New%20York.jpg

a photo of floors dropping? Nooooooo!

i don't disagree with the floors being blown out with explosives i was just staiting something i heard and thought relavent

Not only that, such a large and high building with holes in it, and some of the rest of it air tight, is going to direct air flow in an important way.

What I am saying here is, the building will chimney the fires to make them much hotter at certain points than they would burn in open ground.
Just like a bunsen burner shows an orange sooty flame with it's air holes blocked, with holes open it becomes a much hotter blue flame like a furnace.
Up several hunded feet in the air where these impacts were, the wind factor "could" make a simple furnature fire into a blast furnace.

Remember a traditional blacksmith can make metal glow white hot with just a carbon fire.

Holy crap, just look at the absolute BS that is being spouted in this thread, LC is a shillzone. Blast furnace tower fires, yeah right that explains the great big columns of sooty smoke you clown. Not only do these shills deny the existence of the 47 massive core columns, they now try and deny the huge columns of dark smoke which are testimony to an oxygen starved fire.

Now, seriously, this is the weirdest theory I've seen today. Wind made office fires melt/soften steel.

Random office fires cannot melt steel.

http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/design...ire_resistance/