Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
The towers were capable of holding 3 times there working load, most buildings are.EDIT: I repeat, show me an experiment where petroleum fires weaken steel strucutre , supporting 3 times it's own weight. falls due to fire.
A) "falls due to fire" isn't a scentence.
B) It wasn't just weakened, it was basically destroyed.
wow. pure nonsense. The numbers are posted, do the math. I don't know what you're on about "5 times it's workload". or "how much does the structure need to be weakened"..........completely irrelevant as the event is past tense. Apparently it was weakened enough. I admire Ashtar's ferver but he/she is going in crazy directions. The fact that the building falling do to the structural reinforcement failing was never the question..........they did indeed fall now didn't they. The question was..........what caused the heat? Conspiracy theorists somehow say that the buildings fell because bombs created the heat as burning fire could not do so .........which is nuts as Ashtar himself/herself as already mentioned..........the numbers I posted for heat tolerance is correct.
as stated earlier.
- we know the temp tolerance of the materials used.
- we know the temperature exceeded that of the temp tolerance of the materials used.
where the mystery or conspiracy lies is beyond me.......
Originally posted by Evil Dead
wow. pure nonsense. The numbers are posted, do the math. I don't know what you're on about "5 times it's workload". or "how much does the structure need to be weakened".
You don't know, but, It's pure non sense? If the structure was capable of carrying 5 times it working limit how much would the steel have to be weakened for it to collapse?
Originally posted by Evil Dead
.........completely irrelevant as the event is past tense. Apparently it was weakened enough. I admire Ashtar's ferver but he/she is going in crazy directions. The fact that the building falling do to the structural reinforcement failing was never the question..........they did indeed fall now didn't they. The question was..........what caused the heat?
No, the question, what caused a structure that can hold 5 times it's working limit to collapse, the NIST admitted they could not explain it.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
Conspiracy theorists somehow say that the buildings fell because bombs created the heat as burning fire could not do so .........which is nuts as Ashtar himself/herself as already mentioned..........the numbers I posted for heat tolerance is correct.
You were off by ten percent, it reduces it by 60%.
Jet fuel when mixed in precise proportions with air will burn briefly at 1800 Degrees Fahrenheit. but,Because of the debris (carpeting, sheetrock, furniture, concrete, aluminum, etc.) and lack of oxygen, the fire at the WTC probably burned at 1200 to 1300 Degrees Fahrenheit. So, how much of the structure was weakened, and how much would it have to be weakened in order for it to fall?
Originally posted by Evil Dead
- we know the temp tolerance of the materials used.
- we know the temperature exceeded that of the temp tolerance of the materials used.where the mystery or conspiracy lies is beyond me.......
Actually , we don't, hence why I've been asking.How much strength must the structural steel lose in order to collapse.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
You don't know, but, It's pure non sense? If the structure was capable of carrying 5 times it working limit how much would the steel have to be weakened for it to collapse?No, the question, what caused a structure that can hold 5 times it's working limit to collapse, the NIST admitted they could not explain it.
You were off by ten percent, it reduces it by 60%.
Jet fuel when mixed in precise proportions with air will burn briefly at 1800 Degrees Fahrenheit. but,Because of the debris (carpeting, sheetrock, furniture, concrete, aluminum, etc.) and lack of oxygen, the fire at the WTC probably burned at 1200 to 1300 Degrees Fahrenheit. So, how much of the structure was weakened, and how much would it have to be weakened in order for it to fall?
Actually , we don't, hence why I've been asking.How much strength must the structural steel lose in order to collapse.
Actually, we do. You've ignored the evidence.
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Ashtar, what do you think brought it down then if it wasn't the Official report or Conspiracy Theory? You arn't trying to prove any point whatsoever, we've established that the heat was enough for it to weaken, the Towers fell top to bottom, right above where the hole in the buildings were.
Yes,. but we haven't established up to what point the steel was weakened.
And there is no such thing as "THE CONSPIRACY THEORY" because each theorist has drawn their own conclusion, I already stated mine.
You don't know, but, It's pure non sense?
what do you mean I don't know, I posted the numbers. It would be impossible for me to post information I did not have.......therefore, all this is pure nonsense.
No, the question, what caused a structure that can hold 5 times it's working limit to collapse, the NIST admitted they could not explain it.
pure lies. Show the report that states this. Furthermore.......I still don't get where you come up with (5x working limit). Once a structural integrity is compromised, less than 100%.....it has less ability to hold the weight of the structure itself, much less a multiple of it. Again, you go on posting of things you know nothing about. Any mutliple of stability of a weight baring structure is completely nullified the second the structure itself becomes less than 100% stable.
A fishing line that weighs mere grams can hold a 25 pound fish.....as long as the line is intact. Once the edges of the line become weakened (cut, frayed).....it is no longer capable of bearing the weight. This isn't exactly brain surgery here.
Jet fuel when mixed in precise proportions with air will burn briefly at 1800 Degrees Fahrenheit. but,Because of the debris (carpeting, sheetrock, furniture, concrete, aluminum, etc.) and lack of oxygen, the fire at the WTC probably burned at 1200 to 1300 Degrees Fahrenheit. So, how much of the structure was weakened, and how much would it have to be weakened in order for it to fall?
it appears as though you tried to do a bit of research.......but either have a reading comprehension problem or just didn't understand. Jet fuel burns at 1500. The fires inside the WTC were believed to be around 1800 due to the added products inside the buildings burning (paper, wood, carpeting, furniture). You actually got it backwards sweetie.......atleast you seem to be trying now.
lack of oxygen? are you mad? The fires were high enough as to not be obstructed by any other objects.......they were sucking in oxygen like mad as there were no other structures to inhibit the flow of oxygen.
Ashtar.......please answer me a question. I promise I won't make fun of you. How old are you? In all seriousness, no offense is intended here.......but you have a grave lack of knowledge on the very basics of physics and actually looked up information to post in this thread but comprehended it so poorly as to post the information completely backwards. Seriosly, you've piqued my curiosity.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
what do you mean I don't know, I posted the numbers. It would be impossible for me to post information I did not have.......therefore, all this is pure nonsense.
You did not post the important information I asked for repeatedly.
Yes we know a flame at 1500 can weaken steel 60%, but how much would the steel have to be weaken in order to collapse under it's own weight?
Originally posted by Evil Dead
pure lies. Show the report that states this. Furthermore.......I still don't get where you come up with (5x working limit). Once a structural integrity is compromised, less than 100%.....it has less ability to hold the weight of the structure itself, much less a multiple of it. Again, you go on posting of things you know nothing about. Any mutliple of stability of a weight baring structure is completely nullified the second the structure itself becomes less than 100% stable.
Just because your ignorant on a particular fact, you assume it's a lie
According to Engineering and Technical Handbook by McNeese and Hoag, Prentice Hall, 3rd printing, September 1959: page 47 (Table) Safety Factors of Various Materials, the mandatory safety factor for structural steel is 600%. That is, a steel structure may be rated for a load of only one sixth the actual theoretical limit.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
it appears as though you tried to do a bit of research.......but either have a reading comprehension problem or just didn't understand. Jet fuel burns at 1500. The fires inside the WTC were believed to be around 1800 due to the added products inside the buildings burning (paper, wood, carpeting, furniture). You actually got it backwards sweetie.......atleast you seem to be trying now.
It was indicated, despite showing signs of dyiing fire?! that's pure non sense. Maybe you should try harder, the most important factor in fire is oxygen, a petroleum fire burns up very quickly.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
lack of oxygen? are you mad? The fires were high enough as to not be obstructed by any other objects.......they were sucking in oxygen like mad as there were no other structures to inhibit the flow of oxygen.
The smoke indicated otherwise, and please show me your evidence that supports the fire burning at tempertures of 1800 F.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
Ashtar.......please answer me a question. I promise I won't make fun of you. How old are you? In all seriousness, no offense is intended here.......but you have a grave lack of knowledge on the very basics of physics and actually looked up information to post in this thread but comprehended it so poorly as to post the information completely backwards. Seriosly, you've piqued my curiosity.
I could same the same for you, you haven't posted anything that contradicts what I said besides a obvious attempt to belittle my character. stay on topic, post the information that is relevent to this discussion. I've asked you at least 3 times to explain what percent of the steels sterngth has to be weakened in order for it to collapse, still no answer?
Originally posted by Evil DeadAshtar.......please answer me a question. I promise I won't make fun of you. How old are you? In all seriousness, no offense is intended here.......but you have a grave lack of knowledge on the very basics of physics and actually looked up information to post in this thread but comprehended it so poorly as to post the information completely backwards. Seriosly, you've piqued my curiosity. [/B]
so he has a lack of knowledge on the very basics of physics because you continue to evade the question? 🙄
Originally posted by Evil Dead
wow.......that's a lot for a moot point. The towers did survive the impacts. They stood for a great while after the impacts. They were brought down by the heat of the resulting fires which weakened the steel structure.do you even know what happened on 9/11? weren't you watching on tv? The buildings didn't fall from a plane impact. The first impact wasn't televised as no one knew it was going to happen but the second was........and both buildings were still standing after the impacts. Jesus.......atleast watch a video or something of the event before posting about it.
again thats where their explanation is laughable because as i said previously their have been high rise buildings before that experienced fires that were much more severe than what the towers experienced and they burned for 18 hours without falling.The buildings never should have fell.period.
I've asked you at least 3 times to explain what percent of the steels sterngth has to be weakened in order for it to collapse, still no answer?
answered in full several posts up. There is no set limit for collapse of anything, only structural integrity. Once integrity is compromised 1% is becomes less than 100% stable and in danger of structural failure.
quote: (post)
Originally posted by Evil Deadpure lies. Show the report that states this. Furthermore.......I still don't get where you come up with (5x working limit). Once a structural integrity is compromised, less than 100%.....it has less ability to hold the weight of the structure itself, much less a multiple of it. Again, you go on posting of things you know nothing about. Any mutliple of stability of a weight baring structure is completely nullified the second the structure itself becomes less than 100% stable.
Just because your ignorant on a particular fact, you assume it's a lie
quote:
According to Engineering and Technical Handbook by McNeese and Hoag, Prentice Hall, 3rd printing, September 1959: page 47 (Table) Safety Factors of Various Materials, the mandatory safety factor for structural steel is 600%. That is, a steel structure may be rated for a load of only one sixth the actual theoretical limit.
learn your math. nothing can be more than 100% stable. as you've just posted.....
I could same the same for you, you haven't posted anything that contradicts what I said besides a obvious attempt to belittle my character.
just check my profile. I have no reason to hide anything from anybody.
I'm done debating with 14 year old kids. All information completely destroying your "theory" (which isn't actually a theory without some sort of supporting evidence for instigation of claims made.....yours is more a wild assertion). The maximum temperature capacity to retain structural stability of steel is far below the temperatures of any fire involving Jet Fuel......not to mention the other materials. Completely debunked. You can't hide from facts. Steel loses stability at around 1100.....Jet Fuel burns at 1500. Pure fact, you can not debate this.........unless you have some ground breaking research to unveil to the world that shows the maximum temperature capacity to retain structural stability of steel is actually more than 1500.....or that Jet fuel burns at less than 1500........
you're done. All you do now is troll. Before you can move on in this topic you must first discredit known scientific facts.......that were known far before 9/11 even happened. Steel is not structurally stable at the temperature in which jet fuel burns. That simple. keep on a trolling.......data has been posted.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
answered in full several posts up. There is no set limit for collapse of anything, only structural integrity. Once integrity is compromised 1% is becomes less than 100% stable and in danger of structural failure.learn your math. nothing can be more than 100% stable. as you've just posted.....
just check my profile. I have no reason to hide anything from anybody.
I'm done debating with 14 year old kids. All information completely destroying your "theory" (which isn't actually a theory without some sort of supporting evidence for instigation of claims made.....yours is more a wild assertion). The maximum temperature capacity to retain structural stability of steel is far below the temperatures of any fire involving Jet Fuel......not to mention the other materials. Completely debunked. You can't hide from facts. Steel loses stability at around 1100.....Jet Fuel burns at 1500. Pure fact, you can not debate this.........unless you have some ground breaking research to unveil to the world that shows the maximum temperature capacity to retain structural stability of steel is actually more than 1500.....or that Jet fuel burns at less than 1500........
you're done. All you do now is troll. Before you can move on in this topic you must first discredit known scientific facts.......that were known far before 9/11 even happened. Steel is not structurally stable at the temperature in which jet fuel burns. That simple. keep on a trolling.......data has been posted.
Yep, you don't know what your talking about, so, you start claiming people are trolling. like I said, waste of time debating you.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
answered in full several posts up. There is no set limit for collapse of anything, only structural integrity. Once integrity is compromised 1% is becomes less than 100% stable and in danger of structural failure.learn your math. nothing can be more than 100% stable. as you've just posted.....
just check my profile. I have no reason to hide anything from anybody.
I'm done debating with 14 year old kids. All information completely destroying your "theory" (which isn't actually a theory without some sort of supporting evidence for instigation of claims made.....yours is more a wild assertion). The maximum temperature capacity to retain structural stability of steel is far below the temperatures of any fire involving Jet Fuel......not to mention the other materials. Completely debunked. You can't hide from facts. Steel loses stability at around 1100.....Jet Fuel burns at 1500. Pure fact, you can not debate this.........unless you have some ground breaking research to unveil to the world that shows the maximum temperature capacity to retain structural stability of steel is actually more than 1500.....or that Jet fuel burns at less than 1500........
you're done. All you do now is troll. Before you can move on in this topic you must first discredit known scientific facts.......that were known far before 9/11 even happened. Steel is not structurally stable at the temperature in which jet fuel burns. That simple. keep on a trolling.......data has been posted.
you need to stop listening to GOVERNMENT facts.so he is right,stop listening to the lies and start listening to what the independent investigators are saying. now you have really lost it.you say check your profile,you have no reason to hide anything from anyone,what the hell does checking your profile have anything to do with this discussion? 😆 dude your losing it. 🙄 your so called FACTS are just government lies that you refuse to stop listening to. 🙄 they have not successfully debunked anything.thats a good idea for you to quit while you can because you haven't debunked anything and neither has the official version.again stop listening to the lies.trolling because you cant convince me and because you believe the official fairy tale version? whatever. 🙄 I as well wont waste my time with someone who thinks the critics have not shredded to pieces the official version and wants to believe its been debunked when there is no evidence of that.you just go on and believe its been debunked if thats what you want to believe then.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
you need to stop listening to GOVERNMENT facts.so he is right,stop listening to the lies and start listening to what the independent investigaters are saying. now you have really lost it.you say check your profile,you have no reason to hide anything from anyone,what the hell does checking your profile have anything to do with this discussion? 😆 dude your losing it. 🙄 your so called FACTS are just goverment lies that you resufe to stop litening to. 🙄 they have not successfully debunked anything.thats a good idea for you to quit while you can because you havent debunked anything and neiher has the official version.again stop listening to the lies.trolling because you cant convince me and because you believe the official fairy tale version? whatever. 🙄 I as well wont waste my time with someone who thinks the critics have not shreaded to pieces the official version and wants to believe its been debunked when there is no evidence of that.you just go on and believe its been debunked if thats what you want to believe then.
Evil Dead doesn't have any facts, he just rearranged what I said. I never claimed the strucutre was more than 100% stable, the quote I posted says the working capacity has a 600% increase in from it's originally working limit. I dunno where he got the idea that I claimed the structure was 600% stable, Since I wasn't really talking about stability, but, capacity.
Parker, he actually did debunk ASHTAR(you wern't even in the debate, just choose to Troll when Ashtar makes a comment) but your head is so far into Conspiracy, your mind won't change.
Your right, there have been worse fires in buildings, they didn't have a Giant Hole where a Plane crashed through, that had itself weakened the Structure.
Ashtar, you arn't really proving anything, you refuse to say what you think brought down the building, as it has been established it is not explosives. A while back you said maybe a Nuclear Device, that would have left high ammounts of Radiation, not to mention the small area around it would be vaporized. The buildings clearly fell top to bottom, and collapsed right above the holes in the buildings. Maybe the buildings wern't properly fireproofed? Something wrong with the Engineering? We have the benefit of the doubt
Originally posted by Darth KreigerYour right, there have been worse fires in buildings, they didn't have a Giant Hole where a Plane crashed through, that had itself weakened the Structure.
Are you aware that only one tower was hit directly, alos the top of the tower tipped over yet, it did not fall over, and fell with the rest of the tower, that defy's the laws of physics.
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Ashtar, you arn't really proving anything, you refuse to say what you think brought down the building, as it has been established it is not explosives. A while back you said maybe a Nuclear Device, that would have left high ammounts of Radiation, not to mention the small area around it would be vaporized. The buildings clearly fell top to bottom, and collapsed right above the holes in the buildings. Maybe the buildings wern't properly fireproofed? Something wrong with the Engineering? We have the benefit of the doubt
How am I refusing to say what happened, You just repeated what I believe happened. and about the buildings being fire proof. there was a fire in the nort tower in 1975, obviously after that the building would have been checked properly.