Go read the Popular Mechanics article on the subject. It will explain everything you just regurgitated from Alex Jones.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Yes but they didn't expect the planes to be full of fuel. They expected if there was an accidental crash it would be during a landing and the plane wouldn't have a whole lot of fuel left. We also discussed this topic in class. So yes the fire got hot enough to melt the frame and the building collapsed.

The buildings were full of papers, carpets, cleaning materials, desks, and on and on, all which added to the heat of the fire causing it to increase to such a degree. It never needed to melt the steel, it only needed to weaken it enough to cause structural failure as it did.

Added on to your point.

Exactly as the metal was heated it would weaken and the hotter it got the less weight it would be able to support.

I would thin it would all have to be fire resistant in a high rise but I dont know just thinking logicly. and again thinking logicly I would think the metals would have slowly bent and not totaly failed as we have seen. there would have been some seconds or or half seconds of resistance at each floor it would have busted straight down as close to free fall speed as you can get..........at least this is one of things I wonder about

that is simply laughabl, how can you make a statement like that it is pure fantacy on your part.....prove to me they thought a plane would be empty and I will post exactly what the arcitect said what it was buil to withstand ......your killing me with this BS

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

here is a small excerpt
"The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."

The article also states that steel loses have of its strength at 650 degrees C The article also explains the demolition like collapse of the building.

I have. Its one of the easiet to refute. They use anecdotal evidence to suggest the cause of something thats only happened 3 times in world history. Get this, these 3 incidences happend in the same country, in the same city, on the same day! Wow what a coinkidink! Also go back and reread my post as you either A)didnt read all of it B)didnt comprehend C) chose to ignore it. Please dont cite the Popular Mechanic article again. As anyone can read themselves, its full of conjecture based assertions about how the building fell.



you do realize that the amount of fuel is irrelevant to its burning temperature right? THe plane wasnt fully loaded with fuel regardless.

no but it would lead to how fast the fire spread, and possible explosions caused by igniting of the fuel.

The buildings were full of papers, carpets, cleaning materials, desks, and on and on, all which added to the heat of the fire causing it to increase to such a degree. It never needed to melt the steel, it only needed to weaken it enough to cause structural failure as it did.

The fuel was an accelerator.

In the Popular Mechanics article they cite details of the temperature of the burn.

I would rather believe the mechanics and researchers of Popular Mechanics than a group run by a man who wants to get rich off the incident and you and madison.


"As anyone can read themselves, its full of conjecture based assertions about how the building fell."

After research by very mechanics and other experts. What do you think your side is using? The exact same thing, but with great hysterics.

yes like the people who built the building are gonna admit to messing up. What about the Challenger? NASA acted like they didn't know anything went wrong, but an engineer within the company knew it would happen if they launched that day because it was too cold. He ended up losing his job and had to pretty much give up being an engineer due to being a "whistle blower" Apparently companies would rather not lose money than save lives. As and engineer these are things I have to way on my conscious because I am responsible for the safety of the public before my personal welfare.

none of this explains the vertical support colums, it only explains the floors that broke away from them horizontaly, what took down the support colums? the frames verticaly should have stayed up or at least sections of it. It makes no damn sence

Since you dont want to look at the link.

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

The amount of pressure and force, the structural damage, the softened steel brought bending and weakened beams that added to the pressure, are all what brought down the towers. One collapse brought such great force with it all concrete and vertical beams exploded below it causing the chain of reactions. Once it began, it did not stop, at least until near ground floor. Some of the tower did survive at the bottom, but that was likely because the pileup of concrete barrier which became a means for the force to be transferred through.

Buildings that are full of "papers, carpets, cleaning materials, desks, and on and on" arent unique to other steel framed building that burned but did NOT collapse.



NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. Wow. Go find me all the steel framed building in this century that fell because of "pockets" that hit 1800 degrees. If you do find me any, you'll be half way there. Next you have to explain the free fall speeds.



I dont give a flying firetruck what you're inclined to believe. That isnt important nor relevant to how the buildings actually fell. I couldnt care less whether youd believe me or not; that too is irrelevant.



My side? Do not characterize me please. IVE NEVER MADE A SINGLE CLAIM AS TO HOW THE BUILDINGS FELL. The propaganda war exists between both sides. Ive already stated before, Im not interested in that or conjecture. I want facts--of the verifiable variety. I find the manner in which the building collapsed implausible and uncharacteristic of virtually EVERY other building collapse in history, regardless of cause. The burden of proof isnt on me to prove how they fell. Im asking the question on how they fell because I find the official explanation illogical. If this puts me on a "side", well go team go!

yea the article i posted explains that.

Ugh, the way you think the issue to you will never be concluded, just like the explanation as to what caused the Big Bang, if there is life on other worlds, and on and on. I'd rather live in a world where I have come to conclusions based on evidence and research rather than one where I am always questioning stuff where I can always find a part of it that doesn't add up. If some new evidence or truth comes up to change my opinions or reality so be it, I'd rather go through that than to dedicate my already overworked brain to ponder all questions of the universe.

I think that United 93 might have been blown out of the sky, or at least see the idea as plausible, for the government knew exactly where it was going and what it was planning on doing, but that is all theory as well, one that will likely never be answered and I'm cool with it for I see the logic as to why the government would not admit to shooting down a commericial US plane despite the circumstances.

It's the Machiavellian in me.

forget this, i goofed

Guitarjizzard...
I think you and madisonman are working in shifts to keep this thread alive. I'll leave it now so it may die.

Your thought process would be incorrect.