Poll

Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams???

Yes!
2 (20%)
No!
6 (60%)
Yiff Yiff?
2 (20%)

Total Members Voted: 10

Voting closed: November 13, 2015, 10:18:15 AM

Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams

  • 72 Replies
  • 8639 Views
*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #30 on: November 11, 2015, 09:45:14 AM »

Earlier in the year, Silverstein took out a multi-billion dollar insurance plan on the towers.
He actually ended up profiting quite a bit.

He took out a policy for LESS than the recommended amount and had to be talked UP to that amount.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html
In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.
So, would you then care to address my original two points?
Nope.  that's why I only responded to the one.  Quotes, how do they work?
Okay. Thought so.
honestly, at this point, I can't even remember what those points were and I don't care enough to look for them.  I'm only barely following the thread as it is.
They're towards the bottom of the page when you're typing a reply.
You're too lazy to school down a bit? Or you just don't have answers that fit the official story?

I'll even quote it here for you:
Two things:
Mike, you seem to be knowledgable.
Tell me again why the path of most resistance was taken. When else does this happen naturally, with the exception of active (energy hungry) biological events?
Second, phone calls from cruising altitude and/or altitudes outside the range of ground cells.
too lazy and really don't care but since you insist.

Gravity pulls downward. 

I've heard that the majority of the calls were from airphones.  Of the few from cells I've heard they were from low altitudes and didn't stay connected long.

but again, I don't really care.  and isn't this off-topic for this forum anyway?
It is, it will probably get moved.
I'm talking about the cell phone calls.

And yes, gravity pulls things downward - Unless they are compromised on one side and still fully intact on the other side.
Then, gravity would usually pull them to the side. Certainly not straight down at near free fall speeds.

That's like saying trees should pancake when struck with an axe a few times.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #31 on: November 11, 2015, 10:11:20 AM »
Oh, because everything that mikeman says is true, right?  ::)  You are new here, aren't you?

He was pointing out that what you said should happen was the same as what I said did happen.  We are agreeing with each other so you can't call me wrong without calling yourself wrong, either we are both right or we are both wrong.  Understand?

Two things:
Mike, you seem to be knowledgable.
Tell me again why the path of most resistance was taken. When else does this happen naturally, with the exception of active (energy hungry) biological events?
Second, phone calls from cruising altitude and/or altitudes outside the range of ground cells.

Gravity pulls things down and in the case of the WTC towers down for the severed top part was towards the bottom part.  What else do you expect would happen?  Do you think that the top would start falling up or that it would magically levitate and move over to one side before falling?  Can you think of any possible outcomes in which the top part does not fall down and crush the bottom?

If the official story is so dumb then what's so dumb about it?

It is, it will probably get moved.
I'm talking about the cell phone calls.

And yes, gravity pulls things downward - Unless they are compromised on one side and still fully intact on the other side.
Then, gravity would usually pull them to the side. Certainly not straight down at near free fall speeds.

That's like saying trees should pancake when struck with an axe a few times.

If you look at the footage you would see that the tips of the towers did in fact tip as they fell, and that tipping put additional stress on the beams at the far side of the plane impact point making them snap so the top part was quickly released and fell onto the bottom.  It did not go a free fall speed, it was only the surrounding debris that fell at free fall and it's clear that the building fell significantly slower.

Trees are not good analogies for buildings because their structures are totally different and also the square verses cube law means that larger things are proportionally weaker.  If you don't believe me try crashing two toy cars together head on and comparing the result to that of a real car crash.  The twin towers are even bigger then cars, contain more air, and simelarly high speeds were involved.  What else could possibly happen other then the buildings getting destroyed?
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #32 on: November 11, 2015, 10:29:46 AM »

Earlier in the year, Silverstein took out a multi-billion dollar insurance plan on the towers.
He actually ended up profiting quite a bit.

He took out a policy for LESS than the recommended amount and had to be talked UP to that amount.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html
In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.
So, would you then care to address my original two points?
Nope.  that's why I only responded to the one.  Quotes, how do they work?
Okay. Thought so.
honestly, at this point, I can't even remember what those points were and I don't care enough to look for them.  I'm only barely following the thread as it is.
They're towards the bottom of the page when you're typing a reply.
You're too lazy to school down a bit? Or you just don't have answers that fit the official story?

I'll even quote it here for you:
Two things:
Mike, you seem to be knowledgable.
Tell me again why the path of most resistance was taken. When else does this happen naturally, with the exception of active (energy hungry) biological events?
Second, phone calls from cruising altitude and/or altitudes outside the range of ground cells.
too lazy and really don't care but since you insist.

Gravity pulls downward. 

I've heard that the majority of the calls were from airphones.  Of the few from cells I've heard they were from low altitudes and didn't stay connected long.

but again, I don't really care.  and isn't this off-topic for this forum anyway?
It is, it will probably get moved.
I'm talking about the cell phone calls.

And yes, gravity pulls things downward - Unless they are compromised on one side and still fully intact on the other side.
Then, gravity would usually pull them to the side. Certainly not straight down at near free fall speeds.
Gravity pulls to the side now?

it wasn't near free fall speeds.  it was nearly double.


*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #33 on: November 11, 2015, 01:34:25 PM »

Earlier in the year, Silverstein took out a multi-billion dollar insurance plan on the towers.
He actually ended up profiting quite a bit.

He took out a policy for LESS than the recommended amount and had to be talked UP to that amount.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html
In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.
So, would you then care to address my original two points?
Nope.  that's why I only responded to the one.  Quotes, how do they work?
Okay. Thought so.
honestly, at this point, I can't even remember what those points were and I don't care enough to look for them.  I'm only barely following the thread as it is.
They're towards the bottom of the page when you're typing a reply.
You're too lazy to school down a bit? Or you just don't have answers that fit the official story?

I'll even quote it here for you:
Two things:
Mike, you seem to be knowledgable.
Tell me again why the path of most resistance was taken. When else does this happen naturally, with the exception of active (energy hungry) biological events?
Second, phone calls from cruising altitude and/or altitudes outside the range of ground cells.
too lazy and really don't care but since you insist.

Gravity pulls downward. 

I've heard that the majority of the calls were from airphones.  Of the few from cells I've heard they were from low altitudes and didn't stay connected long.

but again, I don't really care.  and isn't this off-topic for this forum anyway?
It is, it will probably get moved.
I'm talking about the cell phone calls.

And yes, gravity pulls things downward - Unless they are compromised on one side and still fully intact on the other side.
Then, gravity would usually pull them to the side. Certainly not straight down at near free fall speeds.
Gravity pulls to the side now?

it wasn't near free fall speeds.  it was nearly double.
Gravity pulls to the side when things are structurally weakened on the opposite side. See: tree analogy


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #34 on: November 11, 2015, 01:57:45 PM »
Gravity pulls to the side when things are structurally weakened on the opposite side. See: tree analogy

The square cube law is a thing.  See: car analogy.  Buildings are proportionally weaker then trees, not just because they are bigger but also because they have more empty space.  Imagine a tree as tall and wide as a sky scraper with so much empty space that it can be crushed into a piece a fraction of it's size.  Keep in mind that when the top part hits the bottom it's going as fast as any other object dropped from a few floors high and with as much mass as it has it's very hard to stop.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28451
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #35 on: November 11, 2015, 02:38:56 PM »
Gravity pulls to the side when things are structurally weakened on the opposite side. See: tree analogy

The square cube law is a thing.  See: car analogy.  Buildings are proportionally weaker then trees, not just because they are bigger but also because they have more empty space.  Imagine a tree as tall and wide as a sky scraper with so much empty space that it can be crushed into a piece a fraction of it's size.  Keep in mind that when the top part hits the bottom it's going as fast as any other object dropped from a few floors high and with as much mass as it has it's very hard to stop.
Don't forget about the 47 huge steel CENTRAL CORE COLUMNS that would have to be crushed all the way to the ground. These seem to be conveniently bypassed.
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that all of the steel trusses somehow shear off, all around the towers on every floor, encountering no resistance at all as they fall onto each other. What is left?

What could possibly pancake 47 huge steel core columns that housed the elevators and stairs. What could possibly crush that steel to the ground?

How about taking a look at those core columns and see how they were constructed, then come back and tell us they simply pancaked.
18 years old and you know so much as to be ultimately clear that it was kerosene fires.?

 ::)

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #36 on: November 11, 2015, 06:06:07 PM »
I've finally found something I can agree with scepti on.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

sokarul

  • 18933
  • Extra Racist
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #37 on: November 11, 2015, 06:20:26 PM »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #38 on: November 11, 2015, 07:30:15 PM »
Don't forget about the 47 huge steel CENTRAL CORE COLUMNS that would have to be crushed all the way to the ground. These seem to be conveniently bypassed.
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that all of the steel trusses somehow shear off, all around the towers on every floor, encountering no resistance at all as they fall onto each other. What is left?

What could possibly pancake 47 huge steel core columns that housed the elevators and stairs. What could possibly crush that steel to the ground?

How about taking a look at those core columns and see how they were constructed, then come back and tell us they simply pancaked.
18 years old and you know so much as to be ultimately clear that it was kerosene fires.?

 ::)

Those core columns were quite solidly attached to the building, and thus when the building was squished by it's massive heavy top part the structural components came down too.  Show me a building collapse where the core columns stayed standing after the building they supported collapsed.  If the columns were not solidly attached to the building such that the building could easily collapse without taking the columns with it then the columns are kind of pointless.

I finally got around to getting the link to a video I have been meaning to post here.  Here it is:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

There are a total of 7 parts to this and that is just part one.  Watch those and then tell me with a strait face that it was an inside job.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #39 on: November 12, 2015, 08:03:19 AM »
Since the lot of you denying the fact that the steel beams melted seem to know anything about chemistry, and chemical reactions whatsoever, I'll enlighten you.

Magnesium was a metal commonly used in the body of aircraft. When magnesium starts to burn, it can burn at a temperature of up to 3,500 degrees farenheight. That's pretty hot. In addition, when aluminium, also used in the body of aircraft, is converted to a powder-like form, it can burn at up to 1,400 degrees farenheight. Now, the burning temperature of jet fuel can range from 800 to 1,500 degrees farenheight. Combine all these temperatures and you get this:

3,500 + 1,400 + 800 to 1,500 = 4900 to 6400

Now, let's compare to the melting point of steel, which clocks in at just about 2750 degrees farenheight. When you look at it, the lowest burning temperature of an airplane that would've just crashed into a building is almost twice the melting point of steel.

In short, burning jet fuel by itself can't melt steel beams, but when you combine it with the fact that the rest of the plane is burning, then it's way more than enough to melt steel beams.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #40 on: November 12, 2015, 08:25:43 AM »
Since the lot of you denying the fact that the steel beams melted seem to know anything about chemistry, and chemical reactions whatsoever, I'll enlighten you.

Magnesium was a metal commonly used in the body of aircraft. When magnesium starts to burn, it can burn at a temperature of up to 3,500 degrees farenheight. That's pretty hot. In addition, when aluminium, also used in the body of aircraft, is converted to a powder-like form, it can burn at up to 1,400 degrees farenheight. Now, the burning temperature of jet fuel can range from 800 to 1,500 degrees farenheight. Combine all these temperatures and you get this:

3,500 + 1,400 + 800 to 1,500 = 4900 to 6400

Now, let's compare to the melting point of steel, which clocks in at just about 2750 degrees farenheight. When you look at it, the lowest burning temperature of an airplane that would've just crashed into a building is almost twice the melting point of steel.

In short, burning jet fuel by itself can't melt steel beams, but when you combine it with the fact that the rest of the plane is burning, then it's way more than enough to melt steel beams.

That does explain the termite found in the rubble, but no official report ever claimed that steel melted.  Jet fuel can cause steel to loose the vast majority of it's integrity causing horizontal beams to sag and put sheer stress on weakened vertical pillars which causes then to snap, but no steel melting ever happened in the towers.  That is a straw-man argument made by conspiracy nuts who were desperate to support their crap theory.

It should also be noted that adding the temperatures of the burning fuels doesn't produce coherent answers.  The main reason is that 0 on the Fahrenheit and Celsius scales is arbitrary.  The only time adding temperatures makes any sense at all is if you use an absolute scale like Kelvin where 0 is absolute zero.  Think about this: what if you added jet fuel with more jet fuel?  Do you double the temperature?  If you added a single speck of termite to a fire would it start burning over twice as hot?  Ideally you need to figure out the proportions of each fuel that were there and average the burning temperature given that.

Please understand that I am calling you out on this for the sake of being intellectually honest.  We don't need false evidence like that because we have real evidence, and calling it out when we see it gives us more credibility.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42317
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #41 on: November 12, 2015, 08:44:43 AM »
Combine all these temperatures and you get this:

3,500 + 1,400 + 800 to 1,500 = 4900 to 6400
I could be wrong, but I don't think that's how it works.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #42 on: November 12, 2015, 09:29:17 AM »
Yeah, temperatures can't be added like that. Burning temperatures are just an average, based on the average rate at which you burn through the material (in solid/liquid form, without any airpockets) and the amount of energy that is released per mass unit in combustion in normal atmosphere. The magnesium, jet fuel and aluminium isn't burning in the exact same place, either there is magnesium, aluminium or jet fuel at a given point in space. Best answer could be given by calculating the mass-ratio for each material (total mass/magnesium mass, total mass/magnesium mass, total mass/magnesium mass), multiply each ratio by the average burning temperature converted to kelvin (better scale to use) and add them together. This would give a closer average burning temperature. More factors are that the plane is hollow, so increased surface area, and surface areas close to each other, and heated air can't escape quickly, so increased temperatures. Also, it's all burning inside a tight space (offices that the plane rests in, inside the building) so once again, heated air can't escape quickly. Concentrations of magnesium will of course burn with an averagely higher temperature than concentrations of jet fuel or aluminium, as well.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28451
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #43 on: November 12, 2015, 10:10:34 AM »
Since the lot of you denying the fact that the steel beams melted seem to know anything about chemistry, and chemical reactions whatsoever, I'll enlighten you.

Magnesium was a metal commonly used in the body of aircraft. When magnesium starts to burn, it can burn at a temperature of up to 3,500 degrees farenheight. That's pretty hot. In addition, when aluminium, also used in the body of aircraft, is converted to a powder-like form, it can burn at up to 1,400 degrees farenheight. Now, the burning temperature of jet fuel can range from 800 to 1,500 degrees farenheight. Combine all these temperatures and you get this:

3,500 + 1,400 + 800 to 1,500 = 4900 to 6400

Now, let's compare to the melting point of steel, which clocks in at just about 2750 degrees farenheight. When you look at it, the lowest burning temperature of an airplane that would've just crashed into a building is almost twice the melting point of steel.

In short, burning jet fuel by itself can't melt steel beams, but when you combine it with the fact that the rest of the plane is burning, then it's way more than enough to melt steel beams.
You're desperately scraping the last remnants from your barrel in order to keep feeding those that do not want anymore.

Let's make it easier for you and then you can argue.
Let's assume that the so called plane hit the building and took out 5 whole floors, completely and allowed the upper floors to fall down to the intact building after those 5 floors were took out.

Now then, you still have one huge building of at least 80 floors, intact and stronger and stronger as it goes down and also bearing in mind that it also had extra supports in 2 sections.

But you still also have the super thick and super strong 47 steel columns to crush straight down to the floor, snapping just about all the welds and bolts, leaving a nice pile at the bottom  in near free fall speed.

OR, how long would you fellas like to say how long the building took to actually fall to the ground?

You see, in reality in a pancake collapse from the top to the bottom, you could say it would take 1 second for each floor to pancake into the next, bearing in mind that each floor is going to act as a friction damper due to the air in each floor that will be compressed and pushed to the outer sides.

That alone would mean the buildings would take around 100 seconds to fall in that pancake.

Let's say half a second each floor. Pretty fast, right?
That still makes it 50 seconds.

Even a quarter of a second for each falling floor would still mean 25 seconds for entire collapse.

So tell me, how long (by TV footage) how long they took to collapse to the ground?


*

sokarul

  • 18933
  • Extra Racist
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #44 on: November 12, 2015, 10:14:24 AM »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28451
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #45 on: November 12, 2015, 10:38:28 AM »
http://911review.org/WTC/concrete-core.html
I see you didn't read this. Read it and have a think.
Have a think about this one. I'm sure you'll give it your full 0.1 second's worth of attention.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">! No longer available

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42317
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #46 on: November 12, 2015, 10:55:36 AM »
If it was controlled demolition, then why did you not see flashes from the explosives going off?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #47 on: November 12, 2015, 12:54:03 PM »
So, remind me again why we pay engineers and demolition experts hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to conduct demolitions, when the same effect could be achieved by smacking the side of a building with a proportionately sized projectile containing a little bit of Jet-A.
While you're at it, how come the WTC was essentially reduced to dust while, at the pentagon, papers were left intact atop wooden desks?
Still no real answer on the cell phone calls from Flight 93.
And Building 7? Come on.
I thought some of you were smarter than this.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

sokarul

  • 18933
  • Extra Racist
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #48 on: November 12, 2015, 02:44:42 PM »
http://911review.org/WTC/concrete-core.html
I see you didn't read this. Read it and have a think.
Have a think about this one. I'm sure you'll give it your full 0.1 second's worth of attention.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">! No longer available
So you think that video is true and that thousands of explosives were planted to break thousands of joints?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #49 on: November 12, 2015, 04:34:25 PM »
Since the lot of you denying the fact that the steel beams melted seem to know anything about chemistry, and chemical reactions whatsoever, I'll enlighten you.

Magnesium was a metal commonly used in the body of aircraft. When magnesium starts to burn, it can burn at a temperature of up to 3,500 degrees farenheight. That's pretty hot. In addition, when aluminium, also used in the body of aircraft, is converted to a powder-like form, it can burn at up to 1,400 degrees farenheight. Now, the burning temperature of jet fuel can range from 800 to 1,500 degrees farenheight. Combine all these temperatures and you get this:

3,500 + 1,400 + 800 to 1,500 = 4900 to 6400

Now, let's compare to the melting point of steel, which clocks in at just about 2750 degrees farenheight. When you look at it, the lowest burning temperature of an airplane that would've just crashed into a building is almost twice the melting point of steel.

In short, burning jet fuel by itself can't melt steel beams, but when you combine it with the fact that the rest of the plane is burning, then it's way more than enough to melt steel beams.

You are talking about pure magnesium shavings and trying to apply it to solid magnesium alloys.  Are you really this dumb, or just really desperate?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28451
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #50 on: November 12, 2015, 05:33:36 PM »
If it was controlled demolition, then why did you not see flashes from the explosives going off?
You actually do see them in the building 7 footage we were shown. I'm sure you know this.
The two towers showed what was classed as squibs but argued that they were puffs of dust as the floors crushed each other.
This is all about using basic common sense and even you know that what we were told on that day, is not what really happened, in many circumstances.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28451
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #51 on: November 12, 2015, 05:40:11 PM »
http://911review.org/WTC/concrete-core.html
I see you didn't read this. Read it and have a think.
Have a think about this one. I'm sure you'll give it your full 0.1 second's worth of attention.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">! No longer available
So you think that video is true and that thousands of explosives were planted to break thousands of joints?
I don't particularly think any video is true. It's hard to tell what's what with footage of basically anything.
However; if something is put out as official footage, then the aim is to sell the story as fact and it's about deciphering the truth from fiction or part truth and fiction.

I don't believe anyone is so naive as not to see massive discrepancies in a lot of this stuff; especially those who've studied a little of it. I can almost accept the naivety of those that simply watched apparent live footage and took it on face value, without questioning certain aspects that begged questions.

*

sokarul

  • 18933
  • Extra Racist
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #52 on: November 12, 2015, 06:04:47 PM »
You didn't even comment on my link and instead end linked to a video you don't even believe. Why are you so affraid that everything is exactly as "they" claim?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42317
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #53 on: November 12, 2015, 06:30:09 PM »
If it was controlled demolition, then why did you not see flashes from the explosives going off?
You actually do see them in the building 7 footage we were shown. I'm sure you know this.
No, I don't know this.  Please provide a source to educate me.

The two towers showed what was classed as squibs but argued that they were puffs of dust as the floors crushed each other.
Squibs are often used in movie special effects and are not much more powerful than a firecracker.  I hardly think that a squib would be enough to take out a skyscraper support joint.

This is all about using basic common sense and even you know that what we were told on that day, is not what really happened, in many circumstances.
What makes you believe that basic common sense is enough to draw reasonable conclusions about a very uncommon event?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #54 on: November 12, 2015, 09:38:47 PM »
Since the lot of you denying the fact that the steel beams melted seem to know anything about chemistry, and chemical reactions whatsoever, I'll enlighten you.

Magnesium was a metal commonly used in the body of aircraft. When magnesium starts to burn, it can burn at a temperature of up to 3,500 degrees farenheight. That's pretty hot. In addition, when aluminium, also used in the body of aircraft, is converted to a powder-like form, it can burn at up to 1,400 degrees farenheight. Now, the burning temperature of jet fuel can range from 800 to 1,500 degrees farenheight. Combine all these temperatures and you get this:

3,500 + 1,400 + 800 to 1,500 = 4900 to 6400

Now, let's compare to the melting point of steel, which clocks in at just about 2750 degrees farenheight. When you look at it, the lowest burning temperature of an airplane that would've just crashed into a building is almost twice the melting point of steel.

In short, burning jet fuel by itself can't melt steel beams, but when you combine it with the fact that the rest of the plane is burning, then it's way more than enough to melt steel beams.

You are talking about pure magnesium shavings and trying to apply it to solid magnesium alloys.  Are you really this dumb, or just really desperate?
If I'm understanding this properly, I think he's saying if I dump water at 200 degrees into a pot of water at 200 degrees the water should be 400 degrees.
Should we try an experiment?  ::)
Is this guy serious?


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #55 on: November 12, 2015, 09:46:52 PM »
Since the lot of you denying the fact that the steel beams melted seem to know anything about chemistry, and chemical reactions whatsoever, I'll enlighten you.

Magnesium was a metal commonly used in the body of aircraft. When magnesium starts to burn, it can burn at a temperature of up to 3,500 degrees farenheight. That's pretty hot. In addition, when aluminium, also used in the body of aircraft, is converted to a powder-like form, it can burn at up to 1,400 degrees farenheight. Now, the burning temperature of jet fuel can range from 800 to 1,500 degrees farenheight. Combine all these temperatures and you get this:

3,500 + 1,400 + 800 to 1,500 = 4900 to 6400

Now, let's compare to the melting point of steel, which clocks in at just about 2750 degrees farenheight. When you look at it, the lowest burning temperature of an airplane that would've just crashed into a building is almost twice the melting point of steel.

In short, burning jet fuel by itself can't melt steel beams, but when you combine it with the fact that the rest of the plane is burning, then it's way more than enough to melt steel beams.

You are talking about pure magnesium shavings and trying to apply it to solid magnesium alloys.  Are you really this dumb, or just really desperate?
If I'm understanding this properly, I think he's saying if I dump water at 200 degrees into a pot of water at 200 degrees the water should be 400 degrees.
Should we try an experiment?  ::)
Is this guy serious?
You are missing the point.  The water wouldn't be 400 degrees, the steam would be.  What are you knew at maths? ::)

Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #56 on: November 13, 2015, 12:57:17 AM »
A couple months before 9-11, during that period of time when FBI agents were mysteriously forbidden from using air travel, a report was compiled on the possible effects of an airplane striking a skyscraper. Using historical incidents like the b-25 that struck the empire state building, as well as the bravado of engineers who, like some here, appear to believe that skyscrapers are impervious to all damage short of willful demolition, the conclusion drawn was that a building like the WTC wouldn't fall over. This is why nothing was done to avert the attack.

The conspiracy was not to demolish a building and make it look like a plane crash. The conspiracy was to let extremists attempt and fail to knock a building over as a handy pretext for military intervention in the middle east. The fact the buildings fell down surprised even those who had foreknowledge of the attack. Because, shocker, a big@$$ jumbojet hitting a building has catastrophic consequences, difficult to model even after the fact.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2226
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #57 on: November 13, 2015, 01:13:48 AM »
A couple months before 9-11, during that period of time when FBI agents were mysteriously forbidden from using air travel, a report was compiled on the possible effects of an airplane striking a skyscraper. Using historical incidents like the b-25 that struck the empire state building, as well as the bravado of engineers who, like some here, appear to believe that skyscrapers are impervious to all damage short of willful demolition, the conclusion drawn was that a building like the WTC wouldn't fall over. This is why nothing was done to avert the attack.

The conspiracy was not to demolish a building and make it look like a plane crash. The conspiracy was to let extremists attempt and fail to knock a building over as a handy pretext for military intervention in the middle east. The fact the buildings fell down surprised even those who had foreknowledge of the attack. Because, shocker, a big@$$ jumbojet hitting a building has catastrophic consequences, difficult to model even after the fact.

Although I like your theory more than the controlled demolition version. I dont understand the point of the conspiracy.

The idea is that the USA was attacked by Al Qaeda so that the USA can start another war to get their war machine going.
Which is fine when the USA went to Afghanistan (and is still there).
But the war in Iraq, The real money spinner had Zero Connection to 9/11 or Al Qaeda.

As G Bush showed that he could start a war in Iraq without any real reason the USA would have easily justified going in to "liberate" Afghanistan as it did with Iraq. So 911 was not necessary for any military involvement.

Why is the idea that a well organised terrorist group, who did their homework, and due to intelligence oversight got lucky so hard to swallow?
« Last Edit: November 13, 2015, 01:15:53 AM by MaNaeSWolf »

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #58 on: November 13, 2015, 01:15:09 AM »
I think its hillarious that someone thinks that a plane crashing against a building isnt a sufficient cause for it to collapse. Too much anime, I guess.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #59 on: November 13, 2015, 07:40:26 AM »
I think its hillarious that someone thinks that a plane crashing against a building isnt a sufficient cause for it to collapse. Too much anime, I guess.
Depends on the building.
Questions should be asked when the building was specifically reinforced for an impact against the thing that hit it.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.