Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok, I actually know the science of steel very well. Know I don't know the details of the whole thing as I was really sick of hearing about 9/11 events after about the first week but I CAN tell you a little about steel.
First off, think of a blacksmith for example. The blacksmith heats the steel to a certian temperature so that he can make the steel flexible enough to move when he is pounding on it. Hot enough, for those who don't know, but I am sure you do, is when the temperature when steel becomes non-magnetic. He then shapes it into whatever he is making it and quenches it in water or oil to harden the steel. The steel in this state, if it is something that is suppose to hold weight or is a knife, ax, ect, is actually brittle and can break or snap surprisingly easy. If the smith leaves the metal in the fire too long, it gets too hot and destroy the metal. With proper airflow, this can happen very quickly.
I bring up blacksmith cause I'm thinking about your small fire theory here. It can and does happen in very small fires. Just heating the metal can make it weak enough to buckle. Even if there were a fire for example and cold water was sprayed onto those support beams, if they were hot enough and then were quickly cooled down, it is possible that they became brittle and could easily snap under the weight of the building. That is one possible scenario.
The beams before being put into place were required to be flexible enough to handle a certain amount of flexing...which blacksmiths pull back the hardness of the metal through heating it to a lower temperature for a period of time called annealing. SO you have annealed support beams that could very easily have been put into a position were they could have been reheated, cooled into a brittle state, and then snapped. This is another possibility, though unlikely.
You could also heat it up so hot that it burns it. I have seen metals heated too hot and know that it doesn't really mean it melts but rather disinigrates. If a support beam had too much disinigration or was completely burnt through one area of the support system, it could collapse. BUT then again, it is highly unlikely.
Why are those last two unlikely? I'm talking tough strong metal like everyone here is talking about; it is called high carbon steel. Remember I said that metal has to flex enough when supporting buildings? Well instead of all the heating and annealing, taking a risk that you end up with a metal that could have a variety of hardnesses throught it's one piece, they just use mild steel. As it cools by air or even quenching in water, if can only get as hard as the amount of carbon in the steel. That is why blacksmith's use coal; because it adds carbon to the steel and makes their steel harder, stronger. Mild steel IS more likely to melt like lava (as some might envision it) than high carbon steel and could happen in a small fire, as big as fits into a blacksmith's forge, especially if there were enough air flow to get it heating up very quickly.
Good information. Maybe you could give us an example of another 47 story (give or take a few floors) with steel construction, that fell in the same manner as building #7. that would be most helpful. If a simple fire can in fact cause such a collapse, then there should be many examples to compare with. and thanks for taking the time to help solve this pesky puzzle.
I have read your posts enough to know you don't speak with out having good information.---so you just might consider looking at the reports of the "Special security" operations, that were going on in all of the buildings, for weeks, prior to 9/11. There are several reports that seem to support each other. Lots of reports of the buildings being cleared while work was being done. and all security turned off in the process. --Now I'm not saying that's what happened, but when I read and hear all that, I have to listen. I guess they could have gotten together and made up the reports, but i don't know.
I think we have to go back to two of the main sources of these perpetual conspiracy theories. Rev. David Ray Griffin a retired pastor/theologian, and Stephen E. Jones, a retired physicist are the two main proponents of the controlled demolition theory. I'm sure both are great guys, very bright and very educated. But what do either of these two guys know about architectural integrity, structure, etc.? Neither was on the scene doing actual research. In fact, the book Griffin has written is a book that's not based on empirical evidence, but on flaws he sees in the "official report."
But here's a loose quote from The Harvard Advocate, that essentially says what I've been saying about the lack of any evidence regarding the installation of explosives.
Quote:
Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort. The tower walls would have have to be opened on dozens of floors. Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be snuck past security and placed in the towers without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing. Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"
For as inadequate as the official explanation seems, the conspiracy theories seem to be a hundred-fold less believable.
Good information. Maybe you could give us an example of another 47 story (give or take a few floors) with steel construction, that fell in the same manner as building #7. that would be most helpful. If a simple fire can in fact cause such a collapse, then there should be many examples to compare with. and thanks for taking the time to help solve this pesky puzzle.
This isn't really a legitimate question.
First of all, can you give a single example of another 47-story tower that was heavily damaged by falling debris, and had fires burning out of control for 7 hours, and remained standing? I don't know of any.
Mostly though, the more reading I've done on this matter, the more I've become convinced that the official NIST report is the single most plausible explanation I've come across. Most of the conspiracy theories, when examined closely, begin to sound more and more like lunacy.
The collapse of the Twin Towers destroyed a city water main, thereby making the sprinkler system in Tower 7 inoperable. As a result, fires burned out of control in the lower half of the building for nearly 7 hours. Those fires created enough heat to weaken (not melt) the steel supporting structure. The weakened steel could no longer support the massive weight atop it, and it buckled. This led to the "domino effect" that caused the collapse of the tower.
To me, the one point that MUST be remembered is that steel does NOT have to be MELTED to collapse. When bearing massive weight, it just has to be hot enough to lose its temper and strength.
It's not a "pesky puzzle." You just want to believe a fantasy.
the chance of you ever having a clue about what I actually think, is about as good as us ever finding out what happened to Building #7.--But thanks for playing
First of all, can you give a single example of another 47-story tower that was heavily damaged by falling debris, and had fires burning out of control for 7 hours, and remained standing? I don't know of any.
Mostly though, the more reading I've done on this matter, the more I've become convinced that the official NIST report is the single most plausible explanation I've come across. Most of the conspiracy theories, when examined closely, begin to sound more and more like lunacy.
The collapse of the Twin Towers destroyed a city water main, thereby making the sprinkler system in Tower 7 inoperable. As a result, fires burned out of control in the lower half of the building for nearly 7 hours. Those fires created enough heat to weaken (not melt) the steel supporting structure. The weakened steel could no longer support the massive weight atop it, and it buckled. This led to the "domino effect" that caused the collapse of the tower.
To me, the one point that MUST be remembered is that steel does NOT have to be MELTED to collapse. When bearing massive weight, it just has to be hot enough to lose its temper and strength.
One minor point here. Building #7 did not sustain major damage by falling debris. Maybe you could provide information to the contrary. The Small fire were only on a few floors, and were no diferent than office fires anywhere. Look into some of the Major Hotel fires around the world, that were nearly totally ablaze for days, and did not Collapse. I'm not trying to get you to change your mind, just do as you expect me to do, and have some Facts to support you position.
the chance of you ever having a clue about what I actually think, is about as good as us ever finding out what happened to Building #7.--But thanks for playing
How smug.
We already know what happened to building 7. The simple fact that you started this thread is indicative of your not wanting to believe it, therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you want to believe a fantasy.
One minor point here. Building #7 did not sustain major damage by falling debris. Maybe you could provide information to the contrary. The Small fire were only on a few floors, and were no diferent than office fires anywhere. Look into some of the Major Hotel fires around the world, that were nearly totally ablaze for days, and did not Collapse. I'm not trying to get you to change your mind, just do as you expect me to do, and have some Facts to support you position.
Oh I don't know. I consider this to be pretty significant damage.
Who was the fellow that said the best way to get by with a conspiracy was to make it so big that 90% of the people wouldn't believe the truth if the ones conspiring told it them selfs ?? Bet you will never guess
We already know what happened to building 7. The simple fact that you started this thread is indicative of your not wanting to believe it, therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you want to believe a fantasy.
But thanks for playing.
What do you mean we??--ya got a frog in yer pocket?---I'm sorry your scoop of possible reasons for my post are so limited. You know what they say about "assuming"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
---I'm sorry your scoop of possible reasons for my post are so limited. You know what they say about "assuming"
