Fueling the Fire...for old time's sake

[stee]

there is probably a handfull of reasons why, whoever done this did what they did.
i doubt it will ever come out. well the whole truth anyway. But untill it does there will be a billion and one speculations on the reasons why and who was to blame.
Still doesnt dismiss the facts that there, and are clearly there for all to see.

[Kärnfysikern]

Johan, the Pentagon is the easiest one to dissprove. Like I said the jet is 150' wide. The hole in the Pentagon was 9' wide. There was no other damage except the hole. Dont you think the wings and everything else would have done some kind of damage? Also, the lawn wasnt even scratched. I would tend to think that a 747 sliding along the grass would tear up at least a few blades of grass....no?? There are also witnesses that say they saw a helicopter fire a missle at the Pentagon.

this is a quote from the article I linked to in my second post in this thread

Big Plane, Small Holes
CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

[Kärnfysikern]

more

CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

[unvme9180]

this could go back and forth forever. everyone believes their own ideas on the issue. the only thing im saying is look at everything you can and then make your decision. its narrow minded to rule out either that it was a CT or actually how the government said it was. after watching the movies and reading the reports no matter what you believe the other idea is at the very least plausible and definetly deserves some consideration. and with that, im done with this topic................................for now

[stik]

I'm glad to see there's still some thinker's out there. If you really step back and look at the evidence then you can't deny it was an inside job.
From the missing gold to building 7 and everything in between.
And do some research on THERMITE, which btw traces of HAVE been found
by independent researchers and physicists. Check out www.prisonplanettv.com and www.infowars.com and dig around in there.
I've known Alex Jones for quite awhile and he's SERIOUS about the truth,
and he's not some weirdo either. That dude can't even sleep cause of how much he's uncovered. Anyway, don't let the sheep discourage you, keep looking, cause it goes deep!

[stee]

the only thing that will make argument like this go back n forth are the fact that people are all too hapy to believe what they are told. The facts are the facts.

You cannot dismiss the fact that a plane flew in to each tower.
You cannot say the buildings never fell down
Anything between them two is pure speculation.
You cannot investigate the cause of collapse 100% because the steps are impossible to follow.
The only real thing that lies between are cold hard scientific facts.
The series of events etc.
If people dont wanna believe what is fact then its their problem, ive made my mind up how the buillding did'nt fall, but i dont know how it did and doubt i ever will truthfully know.
For those who think it was becasue of the plane and fire caused by, then all i can say is more fool you.

like the age old adage: in the land of the blind the one eye'd man is king.

[USfighterFC]

I've known Alex Jones for quite awhile and he's SERIOUS about the truth,
and he's not some weirdo either. That dude can't even sleep cause of how much he's uncovered. Anyway, don't let the sheep discourage you, keep looking, cause it goes deep!

Good hopefully is life will waste away a little faster now that he's not sleeping.

[USfighterFC]

Do you know what is absolutely pathetic....the way you conspiracy theorists are ABSOLUTELY SO SURE that it was an inside job with nothing but pure speculation. No matter how many thousands saw it and experienced it, no matter how many physicists, scientists, engineers, and witnesses tell you otherwise you will believe one man with horse shit evidence that has been debunked countless times. And you have nerve to call everyone else "narrow minded" when it is you who refuse to hear anything except what you want to hear. Out of all the evidence given to you showing you otherwise you all debunk NOTHING...you will pick at something that you think is weak and do a piss poor job explaining anything. You're only response is "Watch the video man." Please do not think for a second that you're thinking outside the box because you're doing nothing of the sort.

[stee]

problem is US, too many people talk about things they no nothing about. they only know from what they have seen on the TV and that falls for both conspiracy theorists and the people who believe everything they hear in the news.

I have no doubts that the facts are there, deep enough, because i just do not belive that an impact of that size nor fire of that calibre is enough to fell a building of that size let alone 2 in the space of minutes.
Ive seen loads of building fires and ive seen loads fall. but no 2 were ever the same. and ive a garden shed take more time to fall than those towers.

I read a report in the national geographic some time ago. their expert was claiming it was down to the ferocity of the fire. Bollox. any firefighter who knows anythign about how fire burns and how fire protection slows fire spread will tell you that that building did not fall because of fire.
If that is an experts opinion and im speaking from experience, whos wrong?

[stee]

At the end of the day thought.
The expert will say what he is told to say.
"So some people say anyway".
I will say what i know.

[USfighterFC]

Well he's called an expert for a reason. The sprinler systems in the building did not work and were totally destroyed. The inner walls were mostly sheet rock and not concrete. Thats why most of the people were trapped on the upper floors and could not get out. Because all the stair cases were destroyed. I can easily believe that a building could collapse after a plane slams into it and then 35,000 pounds of jet fuel burn at a good 2000 degrees weakening the integrity of the building. You have to remember something, there are millions of tons of steel and concrete sitting on top of this fire on a building where the structure has been severely compromised and there is a fire burning several thousand degrees. Lets say a fire just started on in the middle and burned out of control. No plane nothing. I honestly could say I think the fire would burn itself out before the WTC collapsed. It didnt happen that way because a plane slammed into it and pretty much cut the building in 2.

[USfighterFC]

At the end of the day thought.
The expert will say what he is told to say.
"So some people say anyway".
I will say what i know.

I dont agree with that at all. An expert is just that because he is NOT told what to say and does the research on his own. Right there is how a conspiracy theory starts. What makes you think that an expert hasnt experienced something 10,000 times more than you have?

[stee]

it was actually a pun.
I was being ironic.

and no i really dont think a expert physicist, has been in as many building fires as i have. he may know science, but there are 7 signs of a building collapse due to fire. and not one was apparent in that video.
If one expert is right, how can another expert say the total opposite.

anyway here's my reason. not because it says so in the vid but because of a few different factors that i and a few colleagues have discussed, i guess you could call a few of them experts as 3 have a phd in fire engineering.

The smoke was not pulsating, that would indicate that is is lacking air due to a hot burn.
the smoke was thick and black which hints that there are many soot particles in the smoke.
Once the smoke reaches 500 c the soot particles will ignight, if there is a sudden induction of air this would result in a backdrought. The particles are a mixture of gasses from different materials that would be in the actual fire compartment. Hence they are explosive in the right mixture.
The floors above and below would have been fully protected by automatic fire protection smoke extraction units sprinklers, inert gas supressants firedoors compartmentation etc.
The only floors damaged would have been the ones from the actual incident.
those are just a few off the top of my head, im not that interested in looking through the footage to see if i can get anymore, but there will be many more sign's that i would see if i did look again.

[USfighterFC]

A physicist would not know more than you when it comes to building fire. Just as you would not know as much as a physicist. You are comparing apples and oranges. However a structural engineer would know more than you when it comes to what a fire can do to a building he had total knowledge of. I admit I have hardly any clue what you're talking about when it comes to fires and gas mixtures and all that shit but I know what I saw. I'll rely on my eyes and my personal experience more than any friends you have. You all sat and watched that from 3,000 miles away. I sat and watched it 300 meters away. I lost a lot of friends and you all discuss this like it's a card game. I saw nothing when those towers came down. No internal explosions, no flashes of light, no loud booms. The only thing I saw thousands of people lose their lives in an instant. You may have been in plenty of more fires than me and you're friends may have some PH.d's but believe me when I say you and your friends will never have as horrific an experience I and millions of others did.

[USfighterFC]

But here is something else. It just wasnt over that day or a week or two later. It wasnt over until almost a year later. I had to go to a funeral or more each week for MONTHS!! Can you picture that? Months. Whenever they found a hand, a foot, a bone fragment that was enough for a funeral. After a while you start thinking you will go to them the rest of your life.

[DutchCowboy]

Do you really think the government could keep all these people quiet. Do you have any idea how many people would have to be "in" on this for all these events to transpire the way they did? I have watched the videos and they do point out many good questions; many which still remain to be answered.
My guess would be that if it was a conspiracy, it went like this:

the government may have had intel that the terrorists were planning on ramming a plane into the WTC and decided to go ahead and let it happen in order for them (the government) to use the event as justification to invade Iraq or to unfold a grander scheme of events. Just a thought!

The main problem I have with all this is the fact that there is hundreds of videos of planes slamming into the WTC but there is only one 4-frame clip of the pentagon. WTF? Like NOBODY in the whole area caught the event on tape? Come on meow. To me, there is more cover-up going on with the Pentagon than the WTC.

Oh, BTW.....we never landed on the moon.

[USfighterFC]

Have you ever seen where the Pentagon is located. It's a pretty sparesly populated area with no housing or apartments or other buildings really near it. There is only a high way that runs a few hundred yards away from it. As opposed to Manhattan which is the most densely packed county in America. Remember there is only one existing video of the first tower being hit by a plane. 18 minutes later the second plane hit and everyone and their mothers had a camera on scene at that point,

[stee]

A physicist would not know more than you when it comes to building fire. Just as you would not know as much as a physicist. You are comparing apples and oranges. However a structural engineer would know more than you when it comes to what a fire can do to a building he had total knowledge of. I admit I have hardly any clue what you're talking about when it comes to fires and gas mixtures and all that shit but I know what I saw. I'll rely on my eyes and my personal experience more than any friends you have. You all sat and watched that from 3,000 miles away. I sat and watched it 300 meters away. I lost a lot of friends and you all discuss this like it's a card game. I saw nothing when those towers came down. No internal explosions, no flashes of light, no loud booms. The only thing I saw thousands of people lose their lives in an instant. You may have been in plenty of more fires than me and you're friends may have some PH.d's but believe me when I say you and your friends will never have as horrific an experience I and millions of others did.

Dont get me wrong im not arguing with you.

The only thing i am saying is that fire was nto as intense as the "experts" make out.
weather or not the report comes from a structural engineer or a physicist from MIT or what ever.
The thing what i was saying is when things burn they give off gasses. Plastics meterial etc. they all give off gasses. people confuse it as smoke when they see it coming out of a window.
All this means is there is air heat and gas present.
All you need for a explosion.
for the gass (smoke) to reach its self ignition tempreature it would have to be above 500c. Steel wouldnt lose alot of strength under these conditions especially in a building such as that where the fire would have been localised by the pretection that would be inplace sprinklers etc.
Some could say that they might have failed but you can actually see the white mist off the steam coming out of the upper floors.
Never the less the building fell.
From what i have seen in the past and have read up on in journals etc i cannot see that fire affecting the structure that greatly as to cause it to fall.
If the plane damaged the actual structure then the collapse would'nt have been due to the fire.
I dont know what the credentials are of that guy who said it was down to fire nor am i saying he is missled, but i actually read a report a month later from the IFE (institute of fire engineers) that is was due to the way it was built and the fire subsequentely caused the floors to cascade on to one another. Maybe so, sounds plausable but the only question i have is would it really have happened in 9 seconds from top to bottom, would it have built up that much momentum to actually make it fall as if it was in freefall. Thats a question no one seems to be able to answer with any other explanation further than yes or no.

[stee]

there is nothign worse than searching in smoke filled house and finding a dead child. Something me and my colleagues have all gone through.
Everybody has to deal with horrific experiances some time in their lifes, just no two incidents are ever the same.
maybe people should be showing a little more sympathy to who maybe reading these threads.

[USfighterFC]

No stee your being civil about it I'm not arguing with you back at all. You bring up some good points for sure. I mean I understand what you're saying really but I can't pretend to be an expert on fire engineering. I mean the only assumption I can make is that the impact of the plane caused enough damage to the building to have its structural integrity severely compromised and the subsequent fire was the push over the edge. Who knows, maybe they would've collapsed without a fire over a number of days due to weakening support beams. The way the building came down just seems plausible to me because it was catastrophic. I mean it wasnt only 2 buildings destroyed but actually 7. Including a 50 story building. I think if explosives would have been the culprit then you would need a shitload to bring it down, more than you can hide by a long shot.

[stee]

i dont think it was explosives. but then again i got nothing to argue it wasnt.
the jets of air people are harping on about could be caused byt the downward pressure on floors collpsing on to each other but i doubt it would be that localised. i would have thought that the whole window on that floor would have failed, not just a few.
i can see how it collapsed. but the whole thing of how quick it came down just dont add up. i actually watched it in work on skynews a few of the guys said then that there is somethign not right about how it cam down.
im no one to judge on weaterh it was a govorment cover up, but it wasnt the fire that caused it. maybe the plane had a undelying factor in it all and the fire on top of it made things a little worse. To be honest the fire in an average living room would probably be more intense because there would be many more combustibles for the size of the compartment and no if any fire supression.

[stee]

to be honest with you i really cant see how it they did fall. i could understand a plane hitting a building n doing so much damage its gonna. but it just seems a little bit hollywood for my liking. buildings collapse really slowly and they happend very quick there were no real hint that they were going to fall they just fell, and in seconds it was over.
I thought the first one ok, fair enought, it was hit by a big plane. I remember thinking the second one is gonna stand through it, then without warning that one went, i was like eh? how the hell did that happen.
That was what got the guys thinking.
One siad it wasnt a collapse on the first one, but we all just told him where to get off. The second got us all thinking then, just seemed too identical but then again they were identical buildings.

I think as you see it happening you can relate to how its falling. Looking a little below the surface i cant see how the plane and fire added up to it crashing down like they did. Maybe they would have fallen anyway, but i would have thought it would have been over a few minutes rather than seconds.

[DNoMac]

Well since nobody here has talked about how the towers were constructed I will tell you. I didnt watch them being built but I did watch them come down live and not on tv. The towers were supported by an inner core. This is 4 steel beams that held the bulk of the towers up. The outter walls were not steel but were actually more pliable metal so to sway in storms and high winds. When the planes hit the towers all 4 steel supports columns were totally severed leaving the bulk of the weight on the outter shell of the building. The towers were constructed this way so they cannot FALLLLLLL over because of the inner core beams. As johan stated they were also built to withstand a 707 on a landing desent. This LARGER plane hit the building going well over 500mph...in fact I believe they estimated the plane travelling at around 650 mph....passed max velocity of that sized plane. Now Mr. Minoru Yamasaki the lone designer of the WTC states that it was designed that the building would do something called an "umbrella implosion." Meaning that the way it was designed if it ever needed to be demolished or taken down it would pancake in place as opposed to just falling down on top of a bunch of other buildings from a "suitable height." (Nova) You can see the "umbrella" part because when it collapsed it went outward like an umbrella. This is from the man who built the WTC in the 1970's.

Now if that's not enough here is some food for thought. To bring down a building of that magnitude do you understand how many months of preperation it takes to being down a 10 story building. The entire building must first be gutted so only structural steel and concrete support columns remain. Each column on each floor must be drilled into or welded apart and packed with explosives. Now for those with a brain you'd have to think that how can gov't agents walk into the WTC, weld steel, jackhammer into concrete columns over the course of YEARS (since there are 110 floors in each building) bring in about 100 tons of explosives, wire it up and connect every fuse on all floors at every section of the floor without any person at any time seeing them EVER. I'm sure the daily maintanence crew who is in charge of maintaining two 110 story buildings wouldnt have seen a thing among the 100,000 people who work in the towers. Not to mention that if the towers failed to implode at even one level all those pretty explosives would be sitting there for all to see. Without forgetting to mention that explosive residue would COVER EVERYTHING and its impossible to conceal that. Explosive residue must corrode over time and cannot be washed off or bleached or put into a furnace to melt off. Even the Louazeau family who are the most popular stuctural demolition family in the nation has had several failures with minor structures including explosives that misfired or did not fire at all. And actually this family has more gov't contracts than anyone...and please refrain from saying that this family was part of it. Then I can see you're just reaching for straws.

This and Johan's posts are the only sensible comments in this thread. The moon landing was staged? Come on bro

[Kärnfysikern]

I read a report in the national geographic some time ago. their expert was claiming it was down to the ferocity of the fire. Bollox. any firefighter who knows anythign about how fire burns and how fire protection slows fire spread will tell you that that building did not fall because of fire.
If that is an experts opinion and im speaking from experience, whos wrong?

But where are all those firefighters telling the world the expert is full of shit? If the official explanation is so full of holes experts all over the world would scream.

At the end of the day thought.
The expert will say what he is told to say.
"So some people say anyway".
I will say what i know.

The hardest thing in the world is to get scientists to shut up

[stee]

Never a truer word spoken.

[stee]

maybe it they are, we just havent heard their opinion.
Thing is now it has been a few years and the "official" reason has been released by the white house, they just come across like conspiracy theoritsts, scientist or not.

[Kärnfysikern]

Maybe so, sounds plausable but the only question i have is would it really have happened in 9 seconds from top to bottom, would it have built up that much momentum to actually make it fall as if it was in freefall. Thats a question no one seems to be able to answer with any other explanation further than yes or no.

Acctualy that is fairly easy to check even with just pen and paper and making a bunch of resonabe assumptions. Its just tedious. I started once but had more important things I needed to spend time on.

But all you need to use is conservation of momentum.

If you assume the distance betwen all floors are the same(first assumption), lets call it D.
and that the mass of all floors are the same(second assumption) lets call the mass of one floor m.

The collaps starts with 20-30 something floors moving. Say 20. So that gives a begining mass of 20m that is moving.

The time it takes it to move the distance D is the square root of 2 times the distance divided by the acceleration. i.e

t=sqr(2D/g) where g is the gravitational acceleration.

That gives a speed of the first impact betwen floors as
v=g*t=g*sqr(2D/g)

Momentum is given by

p=M*v=in this case=20m*v=20m*g*sqr(2D/g)

Imidietly after the impact you now have another floors mass in the picture. Conservation of momentum claim that

mv=m'v'

so

20m*g*sqr(2D/G)=21m*v'

Now solve out v' from that and you have the initial velocity after the first step of the pancaking. With the initial velocity and the gracvitational acceleration you can calculate how long it takes for it to move down to the next floor where there is another impact, another conservation of momentum ect. Do that for all floors to get a final time. Compare that time to what the free fall time is t'=sqr(2s/g) where s is the entire higth of the wtc.

The above should be pretty correct. As you can se its very simple but very tedious to repete for 100 floors or so. Im sure there is some way to simplify it but I havent spent any time on that. What I am sure of though is that structural engineers have made very detailed computer simulations taking into account the exact weights of each floor ect to se if the nearly free fall speed is plausible.

[stee]

Any firefighter who knows about the signs of flash over, backdraught and how pyrolysis works, then they will tell you that fire was not hot.
Average house fires reach 1000c, if it was this hot then i would'nt rule out the possibility of fire being the cause of it falling, but it wasnt that hot, i can tell from the "signs and symptoms".

[Kärnfysikern]

Any firefighter who knows about the signs of flash over, backdraught and how pyrolysis works, then they will tell you that fire was not hot.
Average house fires reach 1000c, if it was this hot then i would'nt rule out the possibility of fire being the cause of it falling, but it wasnt that hot, i can tell from the "signs and symptoms".

I wish red ketchup would se the thread he is also a firefighter(I assume you are one??). Would be cool to hear his oppinion.

But what about hot pockets. The jet fuel burns at 2800 f so there is no getting around that some places in the floors where subjected to that even though it probably burned out quickly?

[stee]

it is easy to quote numbers, to be honest i did'nt read in to it alot as it doesnt really interest me becasue i know its a pointless excercise.
I actually studied architeture so maths are not difficult for me but i just cant be arsed.

The thing you will miss out in that formulae is, the floor/s damaged by fire would have collapsed either from the fire damage or the impact or both.

If so and they did pankake on to each other, I doubt very much from the rotational force of the joists falling and the accumulative weight of those floors even the ones above it, they would manage to force the colums and beams below to fail as such that it looks like the building is in freefall.
Ok lets say if it did and that is what happend, then the buildings would'nt have fallen exactly the same and both taken the same time to hit the ground as the damage to each building would have been totally different.

[Kärnfysikern]

it is easy to quote numbers, to be honest i did'nt read in to it alot as it doesnt really interest me becasue i know its a pointless excercise.
I actually studied architeture so maths are not difficult for me but i just cant be arsed.

The thing you will miss out in that formulae is, the floor/s damaged by fire would have collapsed either from the fire damage or the impact or both.

well all that was meant to do was to se if nearly free fall speed is resonable. That is the whole point. Its easy to se that after the first 20 floors or so the fall speed doesnt deviate that much from the free fall speed.
I didnt claim anything about the reason for the collaps. Only that its possible to roughly aproximate the speed in that way.

If so and they did pankake on to each other, I doubt very much from the rotational force of the joists falling and the accumulative weight of those floors even the ones above it, they would manage to force the colums and beams below to fail as such that it looks like the building is in freefall.
Ok lets say if it did and that is what happend, then the buildings would'nt have fallen exactly the same and both taken the same time to hit the ground as the damage to each building would have been totally different.

Why do you doubt that Its not like any structure can be built to withstand 20 floors above coming crashing down.
I think its fully resonable to think that all the support beams just broke like toothpics when it all came crashing down. It would imo happen in a split second. The accutaly time it takes to break the beams would be insignificant imo.

The reason(again imo) that both buildings collapsed in roughly the same fashion is because, well what over what could they collaps? They can not tip over or something like that. They can just go straight down.

[stee]

I wish red ketchup would se the thread he is also a firefighter(I assume you are one??). Would be cool to hear his oppinion.

But what about hot pockets. The jet fuel burns at 2800 f so there is no getting around that some places in the floors where subjected to that even though it probably burned out quickly?

yeah that would be cool. I doubt he would be to unlike everyother firefighter i have ever heard about it. most of the talk goes on here abotu the command and contrall about the incident and how theri proceedure surrounding it was undertaken. but that has nothign to do with this conversation really.

There would have been hot areas on those floors but i doubt they would have really caused a hell of alot of damage.
im not sure what fireprotection the WTC had but im sure it was pretty high standard.
and room that was undamaged through impact wouldnt have had a lot of damage through fire as the walls would have a certain level of fireprotection.
Also i would have imagined they had a very good sprinkler system and maybe an inert gas supressor (halon or carbon dioxide) this would have starved the fire floor from oxygen smothering anything on it.

As for the jet fuel, i cannot really comment on this perticular incident but when planes crash they burn off the majority of their fuel almost straight away.
If you see one crash on a runway you will notice they will burst in to flames, it dont mean that everybody on board is dead.
As the fuel is carried in the wings and that they are not really of a strong structure i would have invisaged that the main bulk of the fuel would have been burned off as soon as the wings hit the building.
The remainder of the fire would have caused hot zones but i wouldnt have said they were not of a really high temp.

If you see a house fire on the TV you will notice the smoke seem to puff in and out of the windows n door. If the fire making the smoke hot enough (500c) wehn the smoke pulses out ward it will seem to catch fire or it may look that the fire is so big inside its "coming out the windows"
This is actually what they call "backdraught" its when the air is strugling to get to the fire and it is pulising because that is its only source to breath. it depends on the mixture of air and gas in the smoke. if it was at its ideal mixture when the air meets the hot gas, it would self ignight and go bang.
if it is too rich of a mixture the air would have to dilute the gass and heat enough, so that when it reaches its ideal mix it will be a very rich burn lots of beed yellow and orange flames.
If it the other way too lean tehn something more has to be introduced. your very unlikley to get a backdraught from this kind of fire.

If you look at the smoke coming out of the building it doesnt really seem to be pulsing and another give away for me is all the white looking smoke you can see on the higher floors.
This tells me that the sprinkler system is woking and doing its job, not only does it cool and smother the fire but as steam is given off it dilutes the smoke (unburnt products of cumbustion) making the overall temp lower than what is needed for the smoke to self ignight. this would also help to bring the temp down in the compartment where the fire was located.

Really sorry about this explanation. Its easy talking to people who have an idea on the subject, but im trying my best to simplify it so you can see what my motives are.

[stee]

yeah i know what you are saying. and yeah anything falls its gonna go straight down. especially if it is that big. and as the buildings were identical it makes it difficult to say that both incidents would have resulted in a totally different collapse.
The reasoning i have it that one of the towers, i dont know which one, would have been damaged quite high up, i remember thinking the one with the plane 2 thirds up would have a job staying upright but the other didnt seem to have any motive to collapse.
Maybe the weight of a few floors 10+ would be sufficient to make all the other below it fall.

I doubt that thought.
as i said beams rotate. all i mean is that the supporting columns would need to have a force strong enough to withstand the weight it is being subjected to.
If you have a beam and it is heavier on one end than the other then the column at that end would need to push up a force greater than that on the other side, this is (resolving equations) use to have a hard on for this shit, god knows why!!.

As the WTC was an artichitectural masterpiece all the floor would have been what the call a uniformley distributed load or (UDL) then the columns supporting it would have been strong enough to put the entire weight of every floor on all of them in a single (point load) say you could have taken the weight of the whole building and put it on the top of the columns, nothing would have happened it would still stand up right.

This doesnt say that the floors failed and each one piled on to the other but as the floor would have been pretty strong, enough to stand its own weight and alot more i doubt it did fall because of the failing of a few columns either through fire or impact damage.

[Kärnfysikern]

yeah that would be cool. I doubt he would be to unlike everyother firefighter i have ever heard about it. most of the talk goes on here abotu the command and contrall about the incident and how theri proceedure surrounding it was undertaken. but that has nothign to do with this conversation really.

There would have been hot areas on those floors but i doubt they would have really caused a hell of alot of damage.
im not sure what fireprotection the WTC had but im sure it was pretty high standard.
and room that was undamaged through impact wouldnt have had a lot of damage through fire as the walls would have a certain level of fireprotection.
Also i would have imagined they had a very good sprinkler system and maybe an inert gas supressor (halon or carbon dioxide) this would have starved the fire floor from oxygen smothering anything on it.

As for the jet fuel, i cannot really comment on this perticular incident but when planes crash they burn off the majority of their fuel almost straight away.
If you see one crash on a runway you will notice they will burst in to flames, it dont mean that everybody on board is dead.
As the fuel is carried in the wings and that they are not really of a strong structure i would have invisaged that the main bulk of the fuel would have been burned off as soon as the wings hit the building.
The remainder of the fire would have caused hot zones but i wouldnt have said they were not of a really high temp.

If you see a house fire on the TV you will notice the smoke seem to puff in and out of the windows n door. If the fire making the smoke hot enough (500c) wehn the smoke pulses out ward it will seem to catch fire or it may look that the fire is so big inside its "coming out the windows"
This is actually what they call "backdraught" its when the air is strugling to get to the fire and it is pulising because that is its only source to breath. it depends on the mixture of air and gas in the smoke. if it was at its ideal mixture when the air meets the hot gas, it would self ignight and go bang.
if it is too rich of a mixture the air would have to dilute the gass and heat enough, so that when it reaches its ideal mix it will be a very rich burn lots of beed yellow and orange flames.
If it the other way too lean tehn something more has to be introduced. your very unlikley to get a backdraught from this kind of fire.

If you look at the smoke coming out of the building it doesnt really seem to be pulsing and another give away for me is all the white looking smoke you can see on the higher floors.
This tells me that the sprinkler system is woking and doing its job, not only does it cool and smother the fire but as steam is given off it dilutes the smoke (unburnt products of cumbustion) making the overall temp lower than what is needed for the smoke to self ignight. this would also help to bring the temp down in the compartment where the fire was located.

Really sorry about this explanation. Its easy talking to people who have an idea on the subject, but im trying my best to simplify it so you can see what my motives are.

I appriciate your explanations because I know nothing at all about how fires behave. All I can realy comment on is the physics of the collaps.

I think the fire proofing in wtc was asbestos(dont qoute me on it though cant remember where I read that) and I think that gets removed fairly easy??

I think reading the official FEMA report would answere alot of these question. I am far to lazy to do that though

[Kärnfysikern]

yeah i know what you are saying. and yeah anything falls its gonna go straight down. especially if it is that big. and as the buildings were identical it makes it difficult to say that both incidents would have resulted in a totally different collapse.
The reasoning i have it that one of the towers, i dont know which one, would have been damaged quite high up, i remember thinking the one with the plane 2 thirds up would have a job staying upright but the other didnt seem to have any motive to collapse.
Maybe the weight of a few floors 10+ would be sufficient to make all the other below it fall.

I guess it would take some pretty advanced simulations to get a answere to that. So I cant even speculate how much would be needed to collaps the beams..

As the WTC was an artichitectural masterpiece all the floor would have been what the call a uniformley distributed load or (UDL) then the columns supporting it would have been strong enough to put the entire weight of every floor on all of them in a single (point load) say you could have taken the weight of the whole building and put it on the top of the columns, nothing would have happened it would still stand up right.

But that is a static resistance to force.
It would be like the difference betwen me punching you in the face or leaning agains your face with my bodyweight. The punch will do more damage. The beams might be able to support the entire static weight. But put a chunk of the weight in motion and it might be enough to make them snap.

This doesnt say that the floors failed and each one piled on to the other but as the floor would have been pretty strong, enough to stand its own weight and alot more i doubt it did fall because of the failing of a few columns either through fire or impact damage.

I guess if enough beams where atleast heated to 600 c they would have lost half of its strenght. If a few of them where in hot pockets it could be even worse(if any of them got heated to the same temp as burning jet fuel they would only have 10% of its original strenght).

[stee]

im not sure what it is to be honest. asbestos has been illegal to use in buildings for some time now. I would have imagined alot of dry wall to have beeen used in the actual inner rooms of the building. Dry wall is pretty much fire resistant. you could hold a blow torch to it all day long the outer layer of plaster will fall of but the gupsym will still be there at the end of the day.
as for the actual fire resistance on the core i dont think it woudl have made alot fo difference if it was protected or not as the fire wasnt a raging inferno.
ive seen many steel buildings subjected to a serious ammount of flame. one was a few week ago. an old cinema was being used as a paint store. it was torched n after a couple of hours it fell. we didnt go in as it wouldnt be worth it.
we got the call a minute b4 7. a woman stopped me and said she could smell smoke at around 5 that morning so i asked her why she didnt call us, she said becasue she didnt know where it was.
anyway. it didnt come through the roof untill about 25 mins of us getting there. once it did it took about 10mins for the builing to completely fall.
i dont know the actualt physical affects of that either. but it was hot. and there was alot of paint in there and no fire protection what so ever.

I think with the WTC what ever the official reason is, no one will ever know truthfully as it is not something you can reenact.

For the sheer scale of the buildings i cannot see how the buildings were damaged enough by the airliners.

As for Building 7, that is a decent explination as to how it fell. There was a fire in the plant room, ever so possible and without the adequate firefighting media it would fall eventually but then again it wouldt fall like that. i would have imagined it to burn for along time. everyfloor becoming ingulfed before the whole premis ending up in a vast pile of twisted RSJ's.

[stee]

i know what you mean with the added force of the floor momentum, but i dont know. i can see how this would topple the building. but for it to take a littel over 9 seconds, i wouldnt have thought even the full weight of the building would have generated enough momentum to have toppled the building in that time.

[stee]

would not have generated enough momentum that was meant to be lol

[Kärnfysikern]

But US posted the comments by the designer of WTC that they where made to collaps in that way if they stared to collaps?

quote from a post US posted earlier in this thread.

Now Mr. Minoru Yamasaki the lone designer of the WTC states that it was designed that the building would do something called an "umbrella implosion." Meaning that the way it was designed if it ever needed to be demolished or taken down it would pancake in place as opposed to just falling down on top of a bunch of other buildings from a "suitable height." (Nova) You can see the "umbrella" part because when it collapsed it went outward like an umbrella. This is from the man who built the WTC in the 1970's.

Anything I write now is just pure speculation from my part anyway so I dont think I can add much more to this thread so Il withdraw from it instead of just speculating.

[stee]

i saw a documentary on the building of the world trade center when i was studying architecture. i cant remember a hell of alot about it becasue we also wer shown the one on that big building in hells kitchen (cant remember its name).
from what i can recall it was desighned in a way so that i would be easy to take down dont quote me on that one though because i might be confusing it with the sears tower. lol i know its a bit vague but i think im gonna join you on the side lines coz i feel ive given more than i can on this
and i dont wanna go over old ground all the time.