None of that. Not making fun of you. I apologize if I have made it sound bad or otherwise impolite.

No apology needed. drinks

you people live in a fantasy land..

riddle me this, batman.

yes or no..

did two jumbo jets fueled for cross-country flights not slam into a pair of buildings? Did they not fall from the top down?

you can attempt to theorize all you like but a jumbo jetliner slammed into each of the two WTC buildings at 500+ mph full of jet fuel, cutting the support columns below at least 10-20 floors of skyscraper which proceeded to fall towards the ground at at rate of 9.81 ms^-2 upon a burning mass of steel and concrete.

until you can demonstrate how an airplane can slam into a 110+ story building, dump it's entire buring fuel load into the stucture of the same and remain standing, F&CK OFF!

Until you show me how the above is possible, I'll continue to hold firm to the fact that the terrorist f*ckholes who hijacked and flew airplanes full of American civilians into the WTC buildings are responsible for their collapse..

As I said earlier, when you can show me a case where the vertical support columns of a 110 story structure can be cut and the stucture burned with jet fuel and remain standing, I'll lend creedence to your conspiracy fantasy.. until then, you will remain a tinfoil-hat wacko in my judgement..

Just a little off topic...

But that picture that Nogames posted of the buildings made me ask one question...wtf were the builders smoking when they came up with those plans?

They sure are different looking.

The building on the far right looks like a block from tetris. Maybe that was the influence for the designs lol

Don't speak of things you don't understand.

Nice language.

Well, are you asking me to hi-jack a plane and fly it into the Empire State Building? Listen...I'm no terrorist, and you're no Osama. All we can do is analyze what happened and try to make sense of it.

Personally, it doesn't make sense that a well-built building like the Twin Towers would crumble when a place flew into them so far up. If the plane hit between the 1st and 10th floors, then maybe I'd agree with you. I've seen pictures of buildings after a bombing and large parts of the building are still standing. I've also seen buildings being demolished with charges set up inside the building at key points. It collapsed sort of how the WTT collapsed. What's more, I've heard it said several times that the WTT shouldn't have collapsed the way they did.

Well, it's not like I believe and support either argument completely. I acknowledge the possibility of both.

And raiderfan, even if you are correct, who can you hope to convince when you come off so defensive? Your position is challenged and you begin swearing and making fun of people, just like you did in the thread about gun ownership.

Lol, Beijing has some pretty nuts architecture. ^_^ I really feel bad about this fire thing. I love that town.

I remember riding my bike through that city gawking at all the interesting buildings, old and new alike. I sort of wish we had more crazy buildings like that over here in NYC. It'd certainly make the skyline more interesting. ;-) We do have a few here and there though...

ROTFLMAO
I wouldn't call them beautiful, but who am I to define beauty?

STEEL and FUEL

UL Says NO WAY WTC
Steel Could Melt At 2000 F
UL Executive Speaks Out On WTC Study
911Truth.org
11-14-4


"The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel."

From Kevin R. Ryan
Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories
South Bend, Indiana
(Company site - www.ehl.cc)

A division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
(Company site - www.ul.com)

To Frank Gayle
Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division
Material Science and Engineering Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
NIST and the World Trade Center at wtc.nist.gov
Dr. Gayle biography wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle

From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: frank.gayle@nist.gov
Date: 11/11/2004

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel ? burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I?m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html

2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187

3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf

4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php

5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11)

6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

That's quite significant. Thank you, nogames.

I checked some of the facts presented in the article. Steel does in fact melt at those high temperatures (http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html). Also, burning rocket fuel can *reach* 5800°F (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine Look under the section "Cooling"), but this is when it is being burned inside a rocket under *high pressure*. There is no doubt in my mind that in an relatively open environment, like the floor of an office building, rocket fuel would burn by itself lower than 250°C or ~500°F.

Well, what should *we* do about it? Maybe I'll high light the article, print it out as pamphlets, and distribute them all over Lower Manhattan. That's what us ultra-liberal, protest-obsessed college students are supposed to do, right?

Would any of you guys in my area want to join me? (No stalkers and rapists pls thx!) lol

I am not sure of why you looked at rocket fuel. In rockets, the fuel is delivered at precise rates with oxidizer, just like in jet engines, but this is where the similarity ends.

To melt or even weaken the structural steel used in 911, by use of jet fuel, we would have to deliver not only fuel mix with oxygen, but do so at precise rates.

Further, we would have to stop the heat sink effect of the steel structure. Most writers are omitting this little detail, when they discuss what would be needed to melt the steel, or to weaken it. What they are talking about is a disconnected piece of a given grade steel, that is being heated up, and has no where to give its energy it receives from a hypothetical fire. The whole steel column structure of a tower is a heat sink. Unless we are delivering the mix of fuel and oxygen at precise point in a very short time, this heat sink effect is going to drain away most of the energy. This is why we see buildings like the one in Beijing being perfectly fine even in sustained fires.

This is easily illustrated by the fact that we split even firewood before lighting it, exactly to escape the unfortunate consequences of heat sink effect. We also keep metal-made radio components held by pliers or such, when we solder, to take away significant part of the energy we deliver with soldering gun.


As for what should we do... I don't know. I don't think anything can be done. It's like taxes, or paper money or communism. There is nothing that can be done, because our fellow citizens would not care or think. There is no hope for this reason.

However, does this mean we should stop discussing this? I do not see the relation here.

You understand more about this than I do. I just looked up "temperature of burning jet fuel" or something similar to get a quick estimate.

Yes, the heat being spread throughout the steel column of the building makes sense. It seems a ridiculous idea to think that fires from an exploding plane could compromise an entire tower like that.

And as for what we can do...well, we can spread articles like this to other people.

Two people can keep a secret............
If one of them is dead.