[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Altho I'm not a moonbat, Nat.Geo.'s tests seem a little off. In the first example with regards to the jet fuel it said:

"Within two minutes of igniting the fuel, the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes."

Then they went on to test the thermite part of the conspiracy and here was their "findings":

"EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center"

Now my issue with this statement is, thermite burns a hell of a lot hotter than jet fuel. Thermite burns at 3600-5400 Fahrenheit depending on the mixture. Now, if something burning at 2000F can melt structural steel, how is that something that burns around 2 times as hot, can't?

Again, I'm not saying there was a conspiracy, but National Geographic's physics just don't add up.

Good eye. Youa re corredct. That's the problem--folks take shorcuts in trying to debunk the 9/11 myths adn thereby become part of teh conspriaacy. Both diesel and thermite are perfectly capable of hetaing steel to the point where it is plastic enough to lead to collapse. The temperarture at whcih diesel burns is also a fucntion of the surrounding temperature.

The collapse of WTC 7 has never been adequately explained. A building like that has never collapsed due solely to a structural fire before. Again, the various investigators have done themselves a disservice adn fed the Troothers when they try to write the WTC 7 anomaly off as business as usual.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish wrote:

The collapse of WTC 7 has never been adequately explained. A building like that has never collapsed due solely to a structural fire before. Again, the various investigators have done themselves a disservice adn fed the Troothers when they try to write the WTC 7 anomaly off as business as usual.

WTC 7 collapsed because NYC is notorious for corrupt building inspectors.

[Hyack]

BartSimpson wrote:

xerxes wrote:

Looks good but it won't matter. Those people are so wrapped up in their beloved conspiracy that reality has no chance agaisnt their mania.

Ditto. There's some awfully long threads on this site with some of the nutbars posting mindnumbing amounts of trash to support their wild ideas.

I certainly hope we have seen the last of them.

If this thread starts going in the same direction as the rest of the 9/11 conspiracy threads it will end up in the same place as the others.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

The collapse of WTC 7 has never been adequately explained. A building like that has never collapsed due solely to a structural fire before. Again, the various investigators have done themselves a disservice adn fed the Troothers when they try to write the WTC 7 anomaly off as business as usual.

WTC 7 collapsed because NYC is notorious for corrupt building inspectors.

That would seem a likely scenario to me. I investigated a couple of aspects that were unique to WTC 7; firstly that the building was allowed to burn unchecked for hours (the focus being on WTC 1 and 2), and secondly whether seismic shock from the collapse of WTC 1& 2 may have contributed. However, I don't think either of those should have led to the collapse of WTC 7.

[KorbenDeck]

South Park already explained who did it "A bunch of pissed off Muslims"

[rawmeat]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Altho I'm not a moonbat, Nat.Geo.'s tests seem a little off. In the first example with regards to the jet fuel it said:

"Within two minutes of igniting the fuel, the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes."

Then they went on to test the thermite part of the conspiracy and here was their "findings":

"EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center"

Now my issue with this statement is, thermite burns a hell of a lot hotter than jet fuel. Thermite burns at 3600-5400 Fahrenheit depending on the mixture. Now, if something burning at 2000F can melt structural steel, how is that something that burns around 2 times as hot, can't?

Again, I'm not saying there was a conspiracy, but National Geographic's physics just don't add up.

The structure was deluged with a large volume of Jet fuel, enough to cause a fire that engulfed all around the columns. The experiment with thermite would have to have used an amount that could not be seen by anyone before a detonation. In most likely hood that amount of thermite was not enough to burn long enough or engulf the structure. It doesn't matter all that much if something has a higher burning temperature if you can't use as much of it.

[Lemmy]

According to Ric Burns' documentary (New York: A Documentary Film), the fuel was paper. The jet fuel ignited an office paper fire and the sustained heat from the burning paper caused the steel to soften.

[rawmeat]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Proculation wrote:

The steel didn't melt. It was weakened from the long exposure to burning fuel. The fuel burned for a lot longer than thermite would do.

The claim is according to the article, it took 4 minutes for burning jet fuel to cause a complete structural failure.
A 4 minute thermite burn isn't all that difficult to achieve.
One little sparkler can burn for a couple to a few minutes.

Just think about the large amount of thermite you would have to some how get into the buiolding, then hide from the public, and attach to the columns to burn long enough to cause structural failure. You would also have to remove all the fire proofing material from the structural steel and then replace it so that no one would notice that the columns have been encased in thermite.

The thermite conspiracy is laughable at best.

[BartSimpson]

rawmeat wrote:

Just think about the large amount of thermite you would have to some how get into the building

Yeah, you'd need one of these to get enough thermite into the building...

]

[rawmeat]

Lemmy wrote:

According to Ric Burns' documentary (New York: A Documentary Film), the fuel was paper. The jet fuel ignited an office paper fire and the sustained heat from the burning paper caused the steel to soften.

The jet fuel would have caused everything you could think of in an office to start on fire. If there was not enough combustible material within an office alone, without the added jet fuel, then the Canadian building code and all codes in each province derived from it would not require steel to be protected with 45min- 2 hour fire protection to allow time for fire departments to put out a fire before structural failure. There is enough combustible material within Type D occupancy (office) to cause a fire hot enough to cause structural damage even if the fire started in a waste paper basket. That is why we need steel to have a required fire resistance rating in large buildings.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

rawmeat wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Proculation wrote:

The steel didn't melt. It was weakened from the long exposure to burning fuel. The fuel burned for a lot longer than thermite would do.

The claim is according to the article, it took 4 minutes for burning jet fuel to cause a complete structural failure.
A 4 minute thermite burn isn't all that difficult to achieve.
One little sparkler can burn for a couple to a few minutes.

Just think about the large amount of thermite you would have to some how get into the buiolding, then hide from the public, and attach to the columns to burn long enough to cause structural failure. You would also have to remove all the fire proofing material from the structural steel and then replace it so that no one would notice that the columns have been encased in thermite.

The thermite conspiracy is laughable at best.

If you're basing that premise on the National Geographic example then I'd say you're wrong. All it takes is to cause a structural failure in ONE load bearing beam and the rest will collapse. You don't need as much thermite as you'd think either. It's not that laughable really.
What's laughable is the way National Geographic "tested" the theory. As was mentioned earlier, all they did was embroil themselves into the "conspiracy".

They outright lied with the claim that thermite wouldn't have beeen able to do ANY damage. Which, quite ironically just adds fuel to the conspiracy fire.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

rawmeat wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

According to Ric Burns' documentary (New York: A Documentary Film), the fuel was paper. The jet fuel ignited an office paper fire and the sustained heat from the burning paper caused the steel to soften.

The jet fuel would have caused everything you could think of in an office to start on fire. If there was not enough combustible material within an office alone, without the added jet fuel, then the Canadian building code and all codes in each province derived from it would not require steel to be protected with 45min- 2 hour fire protection to allow time for fire departments to put out a fire before structural failure. There is enough combustible material within Type D occupancy (office) to cause a fire hot enough to cause structural damage even if the fire started in a waste paper basket. That is why we need steel to have a required fire resistance rating in large buildings.

In order for a fireproofing product to qualify for a certification listing of structural steel, through a fire test, the critical temperature is set by the national standard, which governs the test. In North America, it is set at 540°C. The time it takes for the steel element that is being tested to reach the temperature set by the national standard determines the duration of the fire-resistance rating. Now thermite can burn at 10 times the temp. of the national standard. So, at 540C let's say that gives a 90 minute fire resistence. Thermite can burn as high as 5400C. You do the math.

Now again, I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm just showing that NG manipulated the test or the results of the test.

[rawmeat]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

rawmeat wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

According to Ric Burns' documentary (New York: A Documentary Film), the fuel was paper. The jet fuel ignited an office paper fire and the sustained heat from the burning paper caused the steel to soften.

The jet fuel would have caused everything you could think of in an office to start on fire. If there was not enough combustible material within an office alone, without the added jet fuel, then the Canadian building code and all codes in each province derived from it would not require steel to be protected with 45min- 2 hour fire protection to allow time for fire departments to put out a fire before structural failure. There is enough combustible material within Type D occupancy (office) to cause a fire hot enough to cause structural damage even if the fire started in a waste paper basket. That is why we need steel to have a required fire resistance rating in large buildings.

In order for a fireproofing product to qualify for a certification listing of structural steel, through a fire test, the critical temperature is set by the national standard, which governs the test. In North America, it is set at 540°C. The time it takes for the steel element that is being tested to reach the temperature set by the national standard determines the duration of the fire-resistance rating. Now thermite can burn at 10 times the temp. of the national standard. So, at 540C let's say that gives a 90 minute fire resistence. Thermite can burn as high as 5400C. You do the math.

Now again, I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm just showing that NG manipulated the test or the results of the test.

I understand what you are saying, but it all depends on the quantity of the substance. Off the top of my head I would think it would take a substantial amount of thermite to cause a full structural failure. To a large number of columns not beams. My understanding of the WTC is that it was a unique structural design unlike most high rise structures. The entire building skin was a frame work of columns (kind of like a space frame) rather than a few spaces columns holding girders and beams like most high rise buildings.

To be honest, I am not familiar with what the thermite conspiracy is or how it says thermite was used. I will take some time to take a look at that theory. I am a building professional though. I deal with fire ratings of structures on a daily basis. I just understand the work that would have to go into placing material onto a structural member that would make it very hard for the general public and or building managers to be unaware of the work.

I will check into the thermite conspiracy theory to get better knowledge of what that is.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Well, it has SOME merit but it's not one I'm taking seriously.