General Discussion

vinny9698

(1,016 posts)

3. No Jet Fuel to accerlate the heat

Fri Jan 1, 2016, 04:12 PM

Jan 2016

Metal transfers heat, you can prove this by touching a metal ladle that has been immersed in boiling water. Or touch the handles on a boiling pot of water. Same heat as the bottom of the pan. Jet fuel heats up the top floors, the heat is then transferred down the metal girders weaken them and the rest is history.
There have been skyscrapers fire here in USA and none of those fell down.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This message was self-deleted by its author [View all] lovuian Jan 2016 OP

External fire away from columns versus a violent collision with an object weighing tons followed by NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #1

Building 7 had no collision with planes just a "fire" lovuian Jan 2016 #4

It had massive sections of the the towers smash into it during their collapse. nt NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #5

Official reason for WTC #7 collapse lovuian Jan 2016 #11

Did the fire get to the columns of the building in dubai? NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #14

Intact fireproofing on the columns ....fascinating lovuian Jan 2016 #18

Fireproofing has advanced dramatically from the 1970s. NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #22

255,000 lb max takeoff weight - whatever fuel it burned + traveling at over 400 kts = kinetic energy cherokeeprogressive Jan 2016 #6

Building 7 didn't have a jet fly into it lovuian Jan 2016 #8

Oh. Well if THAT'S all you're saying... then by all means go on with yer bad self! cherokeeprogressive Jan 2016 #10

I'm fascinated at the Dubai design and how well it stood the fire lovuian Jan 2016 #13

The only thing I've got to say is madokie Jan 2016 #2

No Jet Fuel to accerlate the heat vinny9698 Jan 2016 #3

Again building 7 had no jet hit it lovuian Jan 2016 #7

The denial runs pretty thick here. smirkymonkey Jan 2016 #17

This has been understood by blacksmiths for centuries but not somehow today NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #9

Fascinating so is the steel at the Dubai Skyscraper special? lovuian Jan 2016 #12

Do you have any evidence it was exposed to heat? NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #15

The evidence is the fire burnt for 20 hours and smoke seen lovuian Jan 2016 #20

That evidence is? NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #23

... In which case, at most, one might expect the two towers to have bent over Ghost Dog Jan 2016 #19

There is a science that explains this called statics. NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #25

It's so cute how any burning skyscraper becomes a reason Cal Carpenter Jan 2016 #16

I'm pointing out how we can learn from this terrible tragedies lovuian Jan 2016 #24

Please Mods edhopper Jan 2016 #21

this is not about 911 this is about how a Dubai Skyscraper lovuian Jan 2016 #26

Bullshit edhopper Jan 2016 #27

I'm sorry to cause distress and will self delete lovuian Jan 2016 #28