World Aero Data
Aviation discussion. 
Home | Older Messages

Search the Database

Airports
Navaids


Current Page: 4 of 10
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: dwayne ()
Date: October 04, 2012 04:44AM

And one more thing on the matter.

It would seem that we no longer need demolition experts placing carefully calibrated and timed charges to implode hi-rise buildings.

Apparently all that's required is to crash a plane with a full feul tank near the top floor and (in this case) both buildings fall perfectly into their basements....sorry engineers and pyrotechs you're obsolete now.

Thanks for the forum.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Jacob ()
Date: October 05, 2012 03:50AM

Clearly you didn't see the molten liquid steel pouring from the windows in areas that weren't on fire. Why doesn't the government have an answer but some student does? I am an architechtural engineer, I have seen a lot of high rise implosions that look exactly like wtc videos.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Simon Berman ()
Date: October 12, 2012 04:48AM

Very interesting thread, for the most part.

Charlie the filmmaker asked for some links to the data that Bruce Williams posted, but it doesn't seem it was forthcoming. If these statements can't be traced back to the source, there is a necessary assumption made about their validity.

They 'sound' true to me, but i'm not prepared to 'believe' anything.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Phillip ()
Date: October 21, 2012 10:54PM

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>Smoke is a sign of oxygen deprivation
> Regs,
> Bob


[911myths.com]

Yes look how much smoke is coming off of this obviously oxygen deprived fire. The thing most people don't realize is smoke doesn't necessarily mean oxygen deprivation, it just means there are a lot of chemicals being produced by the fire. This is especially true with fuels that can and do produce large amounts of soot as well as burning plastics which offices like you would find in the WTC would have. Also, the smoke doesn't automatically mean oxygen can't get in because there is the chimney effect which would allow it to appear that it was receiving little oxygen when it wasnt

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Phillip ()
Date: October 21, 2012 11:01PM

Jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am an architechtural
> engineer, I have seen a lot of high rise
> implosions that look exactly like wtc videos.

So explain why the government would purposely make it look like a controlled demolition? I mean it would take them much less time and effort to make it look uncontrolled since that wouldn't require time and planning to make sure it happened correctly.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Phillip ()
Date: October 21, 2012 11:33PM

Now, to all the people saying that the steel in there couldn't have melted from the fire, you are correct, but what you forget is that there is more metal than just steel that could cause the molten pools of material. There was about 67,000 kg of aluminum which easily could have melted from that fire (which they did find in melted pools after collapse). There was also a fair amount of glass and a few miles of copper wiring and aluminum air ducts. As for " the building couldn't have collapsed if the steel didn't melt" people, you don't need to melt metal to ruin its structural integrity. Just look at the MacArthur Maze and 9 Mile Bridge collapse which both occurred from gasoline which shouldn't burn hot enough to melt steel but still destroyed and entire bridge.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Phillip ()
Date: October 21, 2012 11:39PM

67000 kg of aluminum from the planes that is.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Brian ()
Date: October 22, 2012 04:42PM

All the people that think a government couldnt do this to its own people, is just down right hilarious....

Nero bunt rome in 64 a.d. In fact, Nero rushed to Rome from his palace in Antium (Anzio) and ran about the city all that first night without his guards directing efforts to quell the blaze. But the rumors persisted and the Emperor looked for a scapegoat. He found it in the Christians, at that time a rather obscure religious sect with a small following in the city. To appease the masses, Nero literally had his victims fed to the lions during giant spectacles held in the city's remaining amphitheater.


keep on thinking this shit "wont' happen again....

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Aaron Allen ()
Date: October 23, 2012 07:14PM

Which one of you are licensed Structural and/or Civil Engineers to be putting out all of this misleading information on what happened to nearly 3000 people. If you do not have facts concrete facts or proof STOP putting misinformation out there for people to read. In a tradegy as bad as 9/11 was you idiots continue to defame our dead by press this ridiculous notion that the Bush administration set into motion to Kill maime and destroy the American way of life. Ignorance is not becoming stop with this divisive behavior and SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Avery ()
Date: November 02, 2012 02:03AM

It's just like the people who don't see the actual evidence and are just ignorant are the Christians and the actual moderately intelligent people who look at all the evidence with an un-biassed approach are the atheists. Do people really think that people would have such a grudge against America that we'd just say that the towers were destroyed by the Government? We ACTUALLY LOOK at the evidence!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Kirby ()
Date: November 03, 2012 05:40AM

I'm just going to give the "conspiracy" theorists a quick pro tip. Help all the ones who think fire & a jet plane caused the 'perfect storm' of naturally collapsing buildings to occur... By sheer fact of the matter, the buildings took the path of MOST resistance. Starting with an initial velocity of 0 m/s. With no reason to have structural supports beneath the crash weakened. And still managed free-fall speeds... It is not physically possible to be cuased by all this "weakness" crap that they keep spouting.


After that, tis' all speculation. But the ones who "Don't buy conspiracies" have to first be educated as to how; before debates can be as to why.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Nobody ()
Date: November 12, 2012 08:03PM

The bushs have a history of both patriotism and treason.

Prescott bush leads 1934 the white house coup.
Banker/backer of Adolf Hitler in America.
His bank processes sales of crucial material to the Nazi war machine.
Youtube "white house coup" or "Business Coup"
endgame 9/11 , Bush whitehouse.

Jetfuel could not have done all that damage on it's own no matter what amount of heat it produced to melt the titanium alloys keeping the buildings intact.
There was never built any building of its streangth in America.

Repeat a lie often enough, and the people will take it as truth eventually.
Goebells, Stalin, Bush/Cheney
WTC = Reichstagg
Homeland Security = Gestapo
Patriot Act = Enabling Act

see the pattern?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Andrew Burd ()
Date: November 14, 2012 07:54PM

with all that black smoke billowing out of the towers and you want to call this "open air" burning??

sorry man.. you're very very wrong... all that black smoke is indicative of an OXYGEN STARVED FIRE.

you need more science.


I was a Combat Engineer in the Army, and I am also a welder and metal fabricator.

those buildings were detonated. end of story.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Andrew Burd ()
Date: November 14, 2012 07:56PM

also you must take into consideration the heat sink factors.. and that these beams were stacked and bolted together... exponentially increasing the rigidity...

not to mention the CORE structure beams were 8 inches thick.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Student75 with Master of Engineering ()
Date: November 14, 2012 11:27PM

the collapse of the WTC violated simple law of physics.
In order to building to collapse like that top to bottom, uniform stress has to applied to each floor from the top. The air plane hit the side of the building, yeah let say the steel got weaken, so all the steel beams vertical and horizontal and whatever the direction of the steel beam happens to be weakened same amount in Y axis? and somehow, the stress in X axis just canceled out, how about Z axis it also canceled out? Hmm how many beams were there?

Bottom line, in order to a building to collapse like "free fall" without tilting, extra help is needed. Engineers and scientists we should stand up against this WTC so many people died.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Anonymous ()
Date: November 18, 2012 05:50PM

The typical conspiracies we here about the planes were fake, a missile was fired out of the building and now this. Whether this could have been the case or not it didn't bring the towers down. The Hutchinson Effect: t is described as a “highly-anomalous electromagnetic effect which causes the jellification of metals, spontaneous levitation of common substances, and other effects.” It is known as the Hutchison Effect, or the H-Effect for short.
What the H-Effect is purported to do is nothing short of extraordinary. It is said to cause objects to defy gravity, cause metal to spontaneously fracture, cause dissimilar materials to fuse (such as metal and wood), and other strange phenomena. Hutchison has captured the effect on video many times, and claims to have demonstrated it for scientists from U.S. Army intelligence. But the claims are mired in doubt because the effect is not reproducible, even by the discoverer himself.

You can say it sounds crazy unlikely and story-like, but if you watch carefully at the videos of the towers collapsing, you see steel instantly turning into dust; ever since Hutchinson's discovery, the US government and its intelligence services have a developed a weapon called a Direct Energy Weapon that use cold fusion not heat as many scientists would imagine you would need to affect something in that manner. It interferes with radiation waves and other gamma waves in the air to split its ions and basically turn in into dust without any energy being used but cold fusion. It can be used for good and bad purposes. It is a sustainable energy source and when the fossil fuels come out I hope it will come into use. But it seems it is the most reliable and trustworthy theory to this day and has proven evidence to support this self. I do not regard myself as a conspiracy theorist, but from my research I have discovered that this is the best explanation for it.

I will be open for discussion but any rude, ignorant or inappropriate replies will be ignored.

Please have respect.

Regards.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: bud ()
Date: November 20, 2012 06:02PM

i am not an engineer but, when the plane hit the building it would have weakened,bent or cut the beams where the plane impacted. then the load of the building above shifted to fewer beams in that area,as the fire weakened the the structure i would expect these heavily loaded beams to fail first and the floors above the impact zone to tilt and fall to the side, instead of strait down.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: mltb ()
Date: November 28, 2012 06:03PM

Billy, I don't read 100 word sentences. I just laugh at them, then I laugh at the person who is trying to convey an absurd point by using a 100 word sentence. Some of you need to get jobs and stop blaming the government for eveything.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Necter B ()
Date: November 29, 2012 01:59PM

This is to d person tha wrote the first post by the name: Future Engineer. I suppose u must have graduated from ur engr school by now as ur comment was made in 2006. So today, I should also suppose that u may have reconsidered ur comments here. Now this is a question for you to ponder: can jet fuel burning at max 900 and something degrees, air in the mixture plus other kinetic energy that may have contributed to the collapse, be enough to turn a massive building to dust? Some use the word pulverize. But that will arrive many other questions. So answer that or re study the matter from a now expertly view I suppose u r.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Common sense ()
Date: December 02, 2012 12:01AM

I do not feel it necessary, or useful, for anyone to write what level of education they have attained, and/or degree(s) that they allegedly possess. Simply said, it is propaganda, because no one else has any means of verifying, or validating that you are who you say you are, or anything you claim about yourself is [fact, and not fiction.]
As a result of all, and when I say all, yes I have read every one of the comments posted here, it is clear to me that the vast majority of people already have their mind(s) made up, one way or the other.
With that in mind, I would just like to say that not knowing something, simply means someone is ignorant. To me, being ignorant is not an insult, no one could know everything, and that is just a fact. However, when someone believes something, and refuses to change their opinion, even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and/or facts that contradict their belief(s) or opinion, they are no longer ignorant, they are obstinate, which should be taken as an insult.
Let’s get to the core issue here, the tragedy, which occurred on 9/11, and whether or not it was a grand conspiracy perpetrated by our own government: I wish everyone would stop and really think, without relying on emotions, and consider first exactly what you are implying. That our own government conspired, planned, and then carried out an operation of this magnitude, in complete and total secrecy. In addition, no one involved in any of the aforementioned stages “blew the whistle,” or even leaked said operation either on purpose, or unintentionally. No one told their wife, lover, husband, or even got drunk and spilled the truth.
I highly doubt that such a treasonous operation would ever be allowed to occur, and even if it were, that it would remain a secret for all these years. Thinking of just the logistics alone, necessary to take down two or three (as some people suspect) buildings, of this size, with the human traffic passing by, as the required ordnance is placed, and no one asks any questions. Even as the required weakening cuts are made to the metal core structure(s), then everything is properly wired so that the explosion will appear to have been caused by the huge fuel filled aircraft that fly into the building, but still no one, not Security, Janitors or anyone else finds this strange. The work force and time alone, necessary to carryout such an operation, on two buildings, is staggering.
Then, someone has to obtain the aircraft, filled with passengers, and fly them into the buildings. This is where I get a little lost, was it just dumb luck that the aircraft were high jacked, and then flown into the buildings, or was all that arranged too? Think of all the family members that watched their loved ones board these aircraft, as well as the friends, and families of the flight crews, what forces them to keep the secret?
All this perfectly planned and carried out, yet no one blows the whistle, not then, or even after all these years? This is so ridiculous, it’s implausible to do, and would be impossible to keep secret, that discussing what temperature the steel beams would melt, or lose their structural integrity at, is pointless.
In addition, these buildings were unique in their construction. The design was created so that the exterior was actually the load-bearing portion, with almost the entire inside free of the normal beams, and girders necessary to hold it up. This is why that when one floor collapsed, it fell one upon the other, like dominos.
I could go on, but it’s a waste of my time, because most of the people that have posted here, want to cry wolf, and their own obstinacies will not even allow them to use the common sense necessary to say, “Yea, I guess that conspiracy theory idea is more than a little ridiculous.”
As for the melting temperature: Think of how an old fashioned blacksmith’s furnace functioned, the key to creating the heat necessary to melt steel was not in just burning coal, it was forcing the fuel to burn, in a confined space, as air is added to it, the smoldering effect is what melts the metal.
Take a single sheet a paper and burn it atop a table, then take another sheet, crunch it into a ball, light it, confine it inside the cup of your hands, and then blow into the opening, which creates a higher temperature, even though it also produces more smoke?
I personally feel that this conspiracy theory claim, “that our own government perpetrated this heinous act against our own citizens,” disrespects both the people that died because of what transpired that day, their families, and our troops that have sacrificed so much, in the global war against terror, to prevent it from happening again. I wonder how many of the people that are screaming conspiracy, have served their country? Just wondering, that’s all.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: joe rodriguez ()
Date: December 02, 2012 10:03PM

2 Words: Nazi Germany...impossible ?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: James ()
Date: December 04, 2012 12:14AM

Molten metal does not mean that the steel melted, it means metal melted. Steel is not the only metal to be found in high rise buildings, either as a construction material or found in objects simply placed in the building.

Second, intense fire CAN and DOES occur under rubble piles and in open burning conditions, what people tend to forget is that the jet fuel wasn't the only thing on fire in those buildings. Also a steal beam will elongate as much as 4 inches when heated from a room temperature to about 1,000 Fahrenheit (538 C), well with in the heat available from the open air burn of Jet "A" Fuel alone. (Page 134, Essentials of Firefighting, 5th Edition; Goodson & Munane; 2008) By simply elongating only one or two steel beams may compromise the entire system, another chief consideration we firefighters must keep in mind is the weight of the building above the compromised structural members. Even one floor’s weight can cause a catastrophic failure of the system. The WTC towers had multiple floors above the weakened members. As these upper floors pressed down on the heated steel it further weekend the support system and when it finally did fail and allowed the upper floors to fall the energy created by gravity continued to multiply the downward force into what is called a “pancake collapse” in which the building falls mostly straight down onto it’s self as we saw at WTC.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Derek Logan ()
Date: December 04, 2012 09:23PM

your argument/statment is invalid.

If this were indeed the case they would have to replace every jet engine after every flight after all they are made of metal as well... infact it's usualy a lighter grade aircraft aluminum.

By the standards of the steel in the towers and time of collapse that would mean every flight lasting more than 30 - 50 minutes... and this being the case jet engines wouldn't be able to fly very long... i.e. no trans-ocean flights, or cross country for that matter.

Come to think of it desiel fule is a close grade quality to keroseene which is in the same tempatrure range as jet fule so ground vehilcles engines would need to be replaced after ever 30 minutes as well give or take stop and go traffic of course. because after all they are made of metal as well.

So you are eather to trapped in the box unable/unwilling to see what's going on around you, or a very poor engineering student that can't thinkin more than one dimension, or you are a disinformation agent, in any event...

your argument/statment is invalid.

Options: ReplyQuote
fire melts steel. DUH
Posted by: DaveL73VA ()
Date: December 16, 2012 06:28PM

To the person who said:

"No other steel building except WTC ever collapsed because of fire."

Here's the deal:

The World Trade Center was NOT built using standardized techniques. The strength of the buildings was mostly in the outer-most shell but the building was heavily dependent on the truss support beams that ran between the inner and outer shells. Truss support beams are not thick at all and the weakest part of the buildings.

When you carve a huge hole in the outer shell (with a plane) and destroy several truss support beams (the floors, being destroyed by said airplane) then subject the inner structure to super-heated flames/explosions, of course the building is going to collape. It can't support the weight of the building above the impact!

The design of the building was its fatal flaw. It was a design never before used and not used SINCE. It was the great experiment, and allowed the buildings to be built in record time.

THAT IS WHY it's the only building to fall due to fire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to Jack Barnett
Posted by: Randy ()
Date: December 21, 2012 05:30PM

Jack Barnett. Securacom now Stratesec, Marvin Bush's company was in control of security at the WTC's. That is how it would be setup. if it was setup, whose to say they didn't use the terrorists to rig everything? The problem with the WTC attacks, there is little to no information, lack of evidence, hidden evidence, hints and links leading up to the attacks, hints and links that lead you to Bush/Cheney, not the terrorists... Here is a good way to start your research, try to find information on the terrorists, ask yourself why Bush stop keeping tabs on Osama 9 mths before the attack, why did FEMA report that the Jet Fuel burnt up in a matter of seconds? There are so many unanswered questions, and only evidence of deception by our own. That is good enough for me to claim that Bush/Cheney were the terrorists. Besides, Halliburton made plenty of money from the wars, and what about Joe Allbaugh? I bet none of you have looked into him.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Graham Lawrence ()
Date: December 24, 2012 12:14PM

With this sort of logic I hope I never enter a building that you have designed!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Ron ()
Date: December 25, 2012 06:00PM

OK, put aside the discussion of Towers 1 and 2 for a moment and the fact that they fell perfectly straight down from fire and were able to project i-beams out at 60MPH laterally defying gravity. What about building 7? It was a football field away from Towers 1 and 2 and No jet fuel at all. Claimed to have been brought down by an office fire, not raging but an office fire. The entire building dropped 8 stories in complete free fall meaning there were no supported columns of any kind on those 8 floors below it. This defies laws of physics and would be the first of it's kind in history and in the world to come straight down due to an office fire.

There are now a multitude of engineers and explosive experts that are joining together because there were things explained that day that are just impossible and were never investigated. Just to name a few that have already been mentioned: molten steel, fire without oxygen, liquefied steel, recorded multiple explosions at the bases of all buildings as well as throughout the buildings. Synchronized flashes synonymous with engineered building demolition. Witnessed explosions in the elevator shafts. Residue of metal deteriorating agents found in the ash that are man made and not created by chance.

Investigators on the site broke many laws by destroying and disposing evidence all without a proper investigation.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Quinton ()
Date: January 02, 2013 01:17AM

Someone brought up that American Airlines Flight 11 (Boeing 767-223ER) and United Airlines Flight 175 (Boeing 767-222) are both constructed mainly of Aluminum, whose melting point is 1,221 degrees Fahrenheit, where the Jet A fuel will burn at a maximum of 1800 degrees Fahrenheit in an environment where the oxygen to gas ratio is perfect. Could this explain the red-hot molten material of some sort coming out of the tower? I don't know. Someone else mentioned it was Asbestos, but that's clearly inaccurate seeing as Asbestos just melts at 800 degrees 800 degrees Celsius if I recall correctly.

If the ratio of oxygen to fuel was perfect in that tower, which is very very highly unlikely, then the Aluminum could have leaked out of the 80th floor.

The trail of molten metal can also be compared accurately to Thermite, where dust was collected after the complete free fall of the towers, that contained Iron Oxide, a byproduct of Thermite.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: James ()
Date: January 09, 2013 06:41AM

AE911TRUTH

For all those looking for scientific proof and answers from professionals.


They have very informative youtube videos as well for those of you still doubting the truth behind 911 I urgently suggest you take your time to find the videos.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Adam ()
Date: January 13, 2013 12:19AM

The only problem, is that it's not hot enough to melt steel, and yet there was rivers of molten steel. You can even see some pouring out of the buildings in the videos. Also, fires burn up. The fire did not climb to every story in order to achieve a perfect footprint collapse. It's more than common sense to think that the unnafected parts would slow the collapse, even make it tilt. The building had 3 sections to prevent such a collapse anyway. There's no way the debris tore through the rest of the building like it was air. Just sayin.

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 4 of 10


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




©2020 WorldAeroData.com.