World Aero Data
Aviation discussion. 
Home | Older Messages

Search the Database

Airports
Navaids


Current Page: 8 of 10
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: JEsseSux ()
Date: April 12, 2014 01:43PM

Thank YOu Jesse Ventura for teaching millions of conspiracy theorists the term "false flag".

All I read on the matter is lots of poeple stating bold facts, and no one providing truth in the form of something simple, like a controlled study.
There have been thousands real studies that can be used for evidence, yet no one follows the thier factual statements with facts...good example would be.....
"According to the US steel company in Pittsburghs study (then provide link), Steel can be melted at this temp. According to a study by Achitectural Sciences at MIT, when Steel reaches this temp, it cannot support X amount of NEwtons or force or G,s or whatever. Jet FUel A burns at X degreesaccording to BOeing.....
....
....But no one ever REsearches and provides VERIFIABLE DATA to back up the claims.

ANd A basic Google SEarch should tell you DR Judy WOod is a well educated moron, (they do exist), 99% of her peers disagree with her, shes so outside the consesus its laughable, and shes obsessed with a completely bogus hoax of free energy. Hutchinson is a fraud and cannot provide a single speck of proof or evidence in his so-called free energy experiments.

funny how most conspiracy thoerists would consider themselves open-minded freethinkers, but lets not be so open-minded our brains fall out of our heads.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Drew ()
Date: April 24, 2014 02:32AM

Oi.........The opening of this thread is correct. I am no engineer but I do know how to read. After some very light research without directly looking at anything to do with this. In other words just looking up the science of it. Yes it is completely possible. Conspirecy? I dont know maybe? Someone in this thread brought up the Manhattan Project which actually had more like 125,000 active people working on it. How? compartmentalization one guy designs and builts a nut another guy the bolt another guy the paint ect ect ect. With only one or two knowing the sum of all the parts. Now that being said would it be possible to blow up a building in secret to look like an accident? Sure of course anything is possible. But bear in mind the Manhattan Project cost in today's dollar around 30 billion. Tuff number to sweep under the rug for a decade. If the goverment was involved. Big if. My feelings Some terrible people did something henious killed good hard working people for some foolish B.S. whatever the B.S. was. Alls I can say is value life. May they rest in peace.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Haroldo ()
Date: May 16, 2014 11:55PM

And, what about the WTC 7, which was the temperaturure reached by the jet fuel?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: stupidquestions ()
Date: May 20, 2014 04:10PM

all three buildings dropping perfectly square I cant see how anyone can explain that

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: david ()
Date: May 21, 2014 02:53PM

steel melts at 2800 f. jet fuel, burning for less than ten minutes would have heated the steel to around 600 f. molten steel seen in the basement of the wtc could not have been melted by jet fuel. it is against the laws of physics. can someone who accepts the official story please explain their physics? i would have to think you are very retarded or very american. [ my apologies to any intelligent americans ]

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Richard ()
Date: May 26, 2014 04:41AM

I have seen many pictures of house fires (forget aviation fuel) where the steel i-beam used to support the first floor is bent like an upside down "u" over a 8x8 wood support. Is the moltan metal they saw steel or aluminum? Normal forset fires will cause aluminum to melt as evidenced by wheels of cars that have been burned in a fire. All that is needed is one floor to weaken enough to collapse on the floor below it and then buidling will collapse like donuts around a central shaft. Doesn't take much science to figure that out.

Before anybody says "Oh well how can the wood still be there if it was so hot it melted the steel i-beam?" Very simple, wood burns from the outside in, and it retains its ingrety even though the outside is burned. At some point the rest of the house is burning up and the weight on the beeam is almost gone.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: dude really ()
Date: May 30, 2014 05:10PM

The fire was more then 70 floors above the ground. Have you ever been that high off the ground? Its windy up there just saying. You know how putting a fan to a flame is never a good thing...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Rich ()
Date: June 23, 2014 06:19AM

Jeff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RE: Posted by: Jack Barnett
>
> Your post tells us right from the start that you
> are not open minded or scientific.
>
> "government agents were able to consistently
> bypass WTC security and plant explosives over and
> over again without detection"
>
> you assume
>
> 1. This is the allegation of everyone who
> questions 9/11
>
> 2. it is not possible
>
> 2. It was government agents.
>
> 3. no one else is capable of this
>
>
> "I'm expected to believe that any person asked to
> participate in this plot cooperates whole
> heartedly and does not question authority? Not
> only that, but do you know how many people would
> have to be involved to pull this off? How about
> friends & family? Not a single person would tell a
> friend or family member about this plot? And then
> we expect them all to keep quiet? Someone,
> someplace would have written an electronic
> communication tipping off the media and
> authorities and this would have come to light.
>
>
> 1. See Iran contra affair for a recent example
> where large amounts of people including media
> stayed silent.
>
> 2. You assume that there have been no whistle
> blowers which you will find out is untrue if you
> decide to use your own brain one day.
>
>
> "I can't even imagine a president asking FBI/CIA
> officials to blow up the trade center. "
>
> 1. you are assuming this would happen.
>
>
> "You may believe that most people in the
> government are corrupt and or stupid, but to
> believe that they encompass this unbridled evil
> says more about them than anything else"
>
> You then go on to ridicule without providing
> ANYTHING of substance in your own post.
>
> are you a dis information agent, or just
> ignorant?
>
> PS: that was a rhetorical question, People who are
> ignorant don't know it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: MBettis ()
Date: June 23, 2014 01:54PM

This is a very interesting discussion but it seems everyones statement that steel doesn't have to melt to become weakened is missing the fact that "steel did melt." Here is a picture I took of one of the steel beams inside of the 9/11 museum. Also note the identical cuts each one of the beams have. Is that coincidence? I am not an engineering expert but by looking at these beams it's pretty easy to tell these beams didn't melt from random jet fuel running down them. I know most people don't want to believe this stuff and they would also say why put it out for the public to see if it was a lie. I refer you to Hiltler's quote, "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."

[i181.photobucket.com]
[i181.photobucket.com]

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Bill Henson ()
Date: June 25, 2014 05:36PM

This is a difficult subject and all factors need to be considered to avoid error. I don't know the truth and it looks like no one else here does either. I did find this to be an excellent article on the subject.

[www.tms.org]

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: drold ()
Date: July 06, 2014 11:06PM

The CIA has never been known to keep a secret let alone a very small group of men who had access to the inner towers for 'testing' purposes for months before 911. Conspiracy? Who would lie that makes public policy? I could never imagine someone trying to do anything without public knowledge. I mean we know how super smart the American public are. False flag? Never been done and pulled off in history. Except for the Reichstag the Polish radio stations, the Lustitania, the Gulf of Tompkin. But who's counting.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Daniel ()
Date: July 06, 2014 11:14PM

Wow man almost convinced by your insights until I realized...mmmmm technology has reached the point, I know this is surprising, that they can actually send signals through the air!!!!! Gasp. I know this is hard to accept but yes remote controls exist and they can be set up to cause a building to collapse on a time delay depending on where the planes hit. I know this is a doozy but it's ENTIRELY possible.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: G ()
Date: July 10, 2014 06:40AM

Yes, but all 3 towers turned to dust as well as melted over 1400 cars and leave fires burning for over 90 days would it? Lets say that a few I beams got loose, would gravity reduce 500,000+ tons of steel and concrete to turn to dust? Would a few beams loose be able to take other steel beams weighing more than a car and chuck it 400+ feet away with an initial velocity of about 100 mph and have beams impacting other buildings with such force it sticks to the other buildings? Again,, thats an initial velocity of about 100mph. Pretty unlikely that 2 planes turned over 1 million tons to dust and melt 1400 cars daamn near a mile away. What would you venture the chances are? My bet is zero.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: eyesWIDEopen ()
Date: July 10, 2014 03:57PM

Okay. Jet fuel burns hot enough to weaken steel. This still does not explain how all of the structural beams failed at precisely the same time to cause a free fall collapse. The top part of the tower would begin to lean as the steel became weaker. A complete simultaneous failure would not have occurred.

Also, can anyone explain WTC 7 collapsing at free fall speed without being hit by any plane? No jet fuel to weaken the steel. Just another complete simultaneous failure of all supporting steel?

Sorry, but jet fuel is not enough to cause that damage.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Greg ()
Date: July 24, 2014 03:08PM

I'm so sick of conspiracy theories and those who spread them. Every major incident this nation had had, has brought them out in droves. Now we're talking about past cultures that killed babies? You'd better be pro-life!!

We were attacked by well- organized terrorists. The hijackers had enough knowledge of the planes to turn them into a guided missile. The buildings fell. The government was bit responsible, but totally responsive. That president had a backbone, good people around him, and the entire house and senate voted overwhelmingly to support his policies to go after the perpetrators.

End of story.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Michael D. Phillips ()
Date: July 24, 2014 08:17PM

The WTC was built in an innovative way no longer used for precisely this reason. There was actually zero (or almost zero) reinforced concrete in the building. The exterior steel bore almost the entire weight and structural integrity of the building and was exposed (you could touch it in perimeter offices and I was in them a few times--the windows were much smaller than the steel, nasty little vertical strips that made the view kind of crap except in "Windows on the World" and up on the observation deck, both at the very top.
The concrete slabs making each floor played a structural role in holding the building together, yes--ask an engineer for specifics.
As the Port Authority was building this massive project on spec with tax dollars, they had to find ways to reduce costs dramatically both to undertake and then to finish the Twin Towers. One way (spectacular mistake!) they did reduce costs was to only use spray-on fire insulation on the structural steel and the interior floor beams that held each slab up inside the building, instead of (heavy, costly) reinforced concrete. Also, the weight of the concrete would made the whole building much heavier and more more expensive.
The spray-on stuff was much like a 'popcorn' ceiling, and some of it did contain asbestos (a very bad thing for survivors and rescue workers--here the EPA did probably do some covering up, and this remains a controversy). It did not perform well, and it was proved during the investigation that big chunks of it had fallen off the steel I-beams all over the building due to bad and/or corrupt contractors screwing up the work and/or the passage of time (the buildings swayed in high winds, the coating cracked, and eventually sloughed off like snake shedding skin).
The PA of NY & NJ knew about these defects, but as the buildings were a money-losing white elephant right up until a few years before 9-11, the PA never did anything about it due to cost restraints.
Eventually even I-beams inside reinforced concrete will fail if a building burns long enough, by the way.
I am not an engineer but I actually had a tour of parts of the inner workings of Tower 1 as a child; and I was working and living in NYC when the whole thing went down. As my work dried up to zilch (real estate) for two months afterwards, I read obsessively about what was known and suspected about the disaster and I remember these elements of the how-it-happened very well. Check a NYT index for the articles that one could quote on this, though I am sure it is well-cited in the Commission Report from more expert or official sources.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Coty Sheets ()
Date: July 29, 2014 06:34AM

I still can't believe people still think 5 terrorist with box cutters did this, it seriously scares me. As far as being insensitive to the victims families, those people should be the most furious and if they've done any kind of research what so ever they would learn the truth. When you have no facts, all you have is an opinion which is useless in a debate. The only conclusion I have is that they are brainwashed. Great information and conversation on here though, I got a lot of facts about physics that I needed. Sorry had to chime in, people in denial just bug the shit out me.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Fire Engineer and Investigator ()
Date: August 14, 2014 11:33AM

Not one person has mentioned the construction and the fAct that there was a huge flaw in this building. There was a huge open center shaft, that allowed the jet fuel to come down the shaft of the building, and weaken, not just the floors that were struck, but the entire center corridor of the building. A 737 holds nearly 10 thousand gallons of Jet A that burns freely at 900C or over 1500 F. When single family homes burn, unless they are arson, burn at over 1800 degrees from the contents including all the foam rubber from cushions, wood from furniture, etc.... There is no doubt that the fire sprinkler system was heavily damaged on impact, thus loosing all internal protection from the open riser and branch lines.

No one talks conspiracy theory (unless arson) when a house or building burns, without 10,000 gallons of jet fuel added. And yes the steel fails and sometimes melts, but don't forget foam rubber for cushions burns at over 2000 degrees and with that open center shaft, 10,000 gallons of jet A and a failed sprinkler system, there is absolutely NO DOUBT, that this building was going to collapse. Every day, buildings do collapse from fire and you never hear that the government had any thing to do wit that.

Conspiracy theorist, this building and ANY other ones built like this, is going to fail EVERY time this same thing happens.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: real engineer ()
Date: August 21, 2014 03:44PM

I hope you will never become an engineer, because you are a lousy one at best.
Yes, steel weakens structurally under heat, but even with its weakened state and even if the steel columns in the WTC buildings have weakened to 10% of their room temp strength those columns still would have kept the buildings intact.Especially the outer corner columns where the temperature was way lower during that short 10 minutes long fire. PM magazine even went that far into the field of lies to state that the jet fuel was only the igniter of fires with even higher temperatures claimed to be cause by office materials and furnitures, papers, rugs, carpets, curtains… etc. I don’t know if I should cry or laugh at this claim. Probably both. Hehe. But even if those columns would not have been able to keep the structure intact then only the upper section of the buildings would have at most bent out of the structure and would have only damaged the upper section of the buildings close to the impact zone. However, definitely a pancake or domino like mechanism is out of the question that is only believed by those without structural common sense and basic structural knowledge. It is obvious that you have not much knowledge about how skyscrapers are built and how immensely strong and also flexible they are structurally. And to claim or even think about that the alleged pancake mechanism resulted the sufficient heat with that to even hint that this is how as a result there were melted pools of steel and concrete under the rubble is just plain foolish. No, not only foolish, but also an insult to us real engineers and an utter assault on the basic natural laws of physics.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Angel ()
Date: September 05, 2014 10:29AM

Okay for those who are having a hard time understanding that Jet fuel cannot bring down these buildings without assistance from thermite... please explain how building 7 came down--no planes hit it... oh yeah I forgot some jet fuel must have sprayed on it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Jaime Ann Hunter ()
Date: September 10, 2014 01:19AM

I have gone back and forth with the NIST report and the conspiracy theories over the last 13 years. It consumes me at times. I have a chemistry background and do know from my own research that the Jet Fuel could get hot enough to weaken the steel. Also the burning asbestos could have increased the temperature. However, I don't think that combination could have achieved this in roughly 1 hours time. That is what makes the Jet Fuel and asbestos theory unlikely. Both the North and South towers went down at a free fall rate. Also, 1140 first responders have developed cancer. Many of these cancers are not lung or mesliothemia that can be linked to asbestos, but all types of cancer. It makes me wonder what the heck was in that jet fuel? A nuclear bomb?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Mad man across the water ()
Date: September 11, 2014 04:03PM

I think that probably most people on both sides of this debate have respect for the people that died that day and their families.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: LaLa ()
Date: September 11, 2014 04:54PM

These people with " their conspiracy theories" are people who have eroded away all Impossibilities and are just left with Truth. To irrevocably deny facts based your unwillingness to accept that the government is "evil" does not make people conspiracy theorist and does not mean they should be disregarded just because you cannot look beyond your own beliefs

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: dude ()
Date: September 11, 2014 10:37PM

You forget the part where a plane smashed into a building.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: steve freeman ()
Date: September 11, 2014 10:49PM

Thermate? Or do you mean thermite? If you're gona say the guy is being ridiculous you should at least know what YOU'RE talking about. 2ndly volcanos dont have a panoply of O2 under their surfaces but the magma is still molten and burns whatever it contacts. 3rd: He stated also that the initial collapse didnt have to result from "melted" members, onlyWEAKENED members.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: steve freeman ()
Date: September 11, 2014 11:06PM

NEWSFLASH NEWSFLASH THIS JUST IN!!! Noones claiming the planes added exponential weight or weakened the lower floors'structural integrity. The energy from upper floors collapsing from the weakening of structural members in the affected regions of the building add exponentially higher energy loads than the building was designed to withstand. The kinetic energy generated from that mass collapsing would be similar to an 18 wheeler running over a volkswagon. Or even more accurate, a 1000 lb beam being dropped on top of said volkswagon. Even though the car may have more mass, the beam has mass x speed (velocity-or energy expressed in foot pounds) to completely crush the car. Its not rocket science...it's just basic structural engineering science.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Dan ()
Date: September 12, 2014 11:57PM

30 million is a tough number to sweep under the rug?

TRY 2.3 TRILLION... lol. The day before september 11th, on september 10th, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference stating that the US treasury could not track 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: ron ()
Date: September 13, 2014 12:11AM

On February 13, 1975, the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire, which "burned at temperatures in excess of 700°C (1,292°F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced."

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Cpt eddy current ()
Date: September 15, 2014 06:01PM

350C is the ignition temp of Jet fuel

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Principle ()
Date: September 26, 2014 04:13AM

This still has posts in 2014!

So everyone that cannot figure out how steel can melt? Have any of you ever worked with steel? banged on it with a hammer, turned a bolt with a wrench, tried to drill through it? With no flame at all I can make it glow bright red!!!! Its called friction and it makes LOTS of heat. Now imagine the force of all that weight crashing to the ground, that could be more force than some tactical nuclear weapons. A megaton of materials accelerating with gravity is a big number.

What reliable report do you have that there was molten steel before? You believe some account from someone? All of you will readily assume that the building was constructed properly, but so easily believe that people and the Government could be so evil to deceive you. Follow the money of construction costs and how much you might save from skimping. It was built to be cheap with lightweight construction, and the core was hollow so fuel could have flowed to the base and been burning to make people think it was melting I suppose. More likely a little bit of twisting of the steel would cause so much heat it might glow at the base. It may twist from buckling due to the plane taking out some structure and fires causing expansion and weakened steel.

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 8 of 10


Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.
This forum powered by Phorum.




©2017 WorldAeroData.com.