The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers
Thursday, December 17, 2015
For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT
10 comments:
Anonymous
said...
How long did your steel heat? Jet fuel burns off rapidly, and not at 1800 degrees as stated. And the structural steel of the towers a tad thicker than a 1/2 inch wouldn't you say? Keep making horse shoes hillbilly, keep the science for the 100 of structural architects and engineers who refute the official story.
boy it must have burn't real hot to get surrounding buildings , he had the steel in the furnace close to the flame. it's not the same thing I don't think the fuel would have burn't long enough to weaken the steel. I can heat any thickness of metal in my shop to bend it so what
Besides, there's an insulating layer of fireproofing sprayed on the steel as well to delay the possible failure until all can leave the building. That jet fuel burned for no more than 4-5 minutes. The explosives planted in the walls did the rest.
I love how all you experts (cough) think you know what happened. You don't know and I don't know. You can speculate all you want but engineering is just that. Theories and speculation until you implement it. With all the issues going on at the eastern shore I wouldn't trust any of your so called professional (cough) opinion.
Please get your facts straight it wasn't the heavy exterior steel columns which overheated and caused the collapse of the WTC buildings. What really caused the failure of the bearing members was the heating and sagging of the interior steel floor trusses. That building was designed to carry the majority of it load on the exterior steel columns. However, in order to maintain this type of const each floor must serve as a diaphragm in order to keep the exterior walls from buckling. When the planes crashed most of the foam fire protection was blown off the light weight steel floor trusses. The resulting fire caused the sag and failure of many of the required floor systems. As these floor systems failed the bearing exterior walls lost there ridgidity and became unstable to the point where the weight of the undamaged floors above was just too heavy for the weakened building diaphragm. At the time this was a new type of building system which is very strong as long as as each system did its job. THe heavy exterior steel beams carried the weight and the diaphragm in the light weight floor trusses on every floor made the building rigid. A lot of folks seem to think that the steel would need to become molten for it to fail, in this type of building system all it takes is the failure=sag or collapse of enough floors for a building of this size until it just cannot hold it own weight anymore. This type of failure can cause a pancake type of destruction where once the exterior walls give way and allow the collapse of the upper floors the weight of the these upper floors basically rip each floor away from the exterior steel columns and cause the building to implode on its self. Once it starts it cannot be stopped. This type of failure is also what occurred at building 7.
The point in question is whether the metal melted not bent. Some of the metal in the towers melted so badly it had to be tested to see where it came from. All this guy has done it show the metal can be bent at lower temperatures . This still doesn't explain how some metals in the towers melted when temperatures never reached high enough to do so. It's a shame we as Americans don't have the trust we should have in our government and will probably never know the real truth behind 9/11 . I say that not because I believe the government lied I say that because I don't think our government doesn't even know .
10 comments:
How long did your steel heat? Jet fuel burns off rapidly, and not at 1800 degrees as stated. And the structural steel of the towers a tad thicker than a 1/2 inch wouldn't you say? Keep making horse shoes hillbilly, keep the science for the 100 of structural architects and engineers who refute the official story.
Shade Tree Science at work.
boy it must have burn't real hot to get surrounding buildings , he had the steel in the furnace close to the flame. it's not the same thing I don't think the fuel would have burn't long enough to weaken the steel. I can heat any thickness of metal in my shop to bend it so what
Besides, there's an insulating layer of fireproofing sprayed on the steel as well to delay the possible failure until all can leave the building. That jet fuel burned for no more than 4-5 minutes. The explosives planted in the walls did the rest.
I love how all you experts (cough) think you know what happened. You don't know and I don't know. You can speculate all you want but engineering is just that. Theories and speculation until you implement it. With all the issues going on at the eastern shore I wouldn't trust any of your so called professional (cough) opinion.
Let him explain Building 7 collapsing at free fall speed, into its own footprint...I'll wait.
Please get your facts straight it wasn't the heavy exterior steel columns which overheated and caused the collapse of the WTC buildings. What really caused the failure of the bearing members was the heating and sagging of the interior steel floor trusses. That building was designed to carry the majority of it load on the exterior steel columns. However, in order to maintain this type of const each floor must serve as a diaphragm in order to keep the exterior walls from buckling. When the planes crashed most of the foam fire protection was blown off the light weight steel floor trusses. The resulting fire caused the sag and failure of many of the required floor systems. As these floor systems failed the bearing exterior walls lost there ridgidity and became unstable to the point where the weight of the undamaged floors above was just too heavy for the weakened building diaphragm. At the time this was a new type of building system which is very strong as long as as each system did its job. THe heavy exterior steel beams carried the weight and the diaphragm in the light weight floor trusses on every floor made the building rigid. A lot of folks seem to think that the steel would need to become molten for it to fail, in this type of building system all it takes is the failure=sag or collapse of enough floors for a building of this size until it just cannot hold it own weight anymore. This type of failure can cause a pancake type of destruction where once the exterior walls give way and allow the collapse of the upper floors the weight of the these upper floors basically rip each floor away from the exterior steel columns and cause the building to implode on its self. Once it starts it cannot be stopped. This type of failure is also what occurred at building 7.
You sound as though someone struck a nerve.haha.
You sound like John Jacabs trying to explain why the WWTP wouldn't work.
The point in question is whether the metal melted not bent. Some of the metal in the towers melted so badly it had to be tested to see where it came from. All this guy has done it show the metal can be bent at lower temperatures . This still doesn't explain how some metals in the towers melted when temperatures never reached high enough to do so. It's a shame we as Americans don't have the trust we should have in our government and will probably never know the real truth behind 9/11 . I say that not because I believe the government lied I say that because I don't think our government doesn't even know .
Post a Comment