Home | Older Messages

Search the Database


Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Ian Armistead ()
Date: May 09, 2015 03:45AM

Yes the steel can become weak, but it would only pancake on that floor. There is no other recorded event of a building collapsing due to fire. Plus the speed at which they fell, nine & ten seconds is classed as free fall. This would only happen on a path of no resistance. Why would there be no resistance from the floors below, there were no fires down there. The path of no resistance was created by explosive charges, evidence shows the squibs (puffs of smoke) emitting from the building as the charges went off prior to the collapse.

Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Chris ()
Date: June 02, 2015 12:54PM

Thank you for schooling that shill!

He needs to here the firemen say that the steel was flowing like "MOLTEN LAVA," doesn't he?
And you would also think he would know that the towers would have all tipped to the weakest sides AND TOPPLED OVER, AT LEAST ONE OF THEM!
I meant really!
Not 1 but 3 steel buildings destroyed by fire for the first and the last time, all in the same day! WOW!
What a FISHING STORY! lolsmiling smiley

Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: tachel ()
Date: June 02, 2015 10:00PM

watch the footage. there are highly energetic areas where popping sounds, sparks pouring out of building in concentrated areas and lots of white smoke. there is footage of severed columns with obvious areas of melted iron at the point where they were severed. these are all signs pointing to thermite or thermate being used. i fully believe planes hit those towers, but the engineers and architects who designed the building are on record as saying that they built them to withstand a fully loaded 707 hitting them. granted, a 707 is a smaller plane than a 767 or 757, but that impact, and fires resulting from it in no way should have caused those buildings to fall. were the designers only thinking of the impact force of a jet, or did they take into account the fuel and fires that would result from that.

Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Justyn time ()
Date: June 04, 2015 07:32PM

I guess you are content with the report and I understand completely. I am not. There are far to many questionable actions that took place on the attack day as well as the follow up report which didn't mention BUILDING 7, or why the president wasn't ushered to a secure location after building 2 was attacked, actually after building 1 was attacked should have sent the secret service into hyper mode, but instead the president stayed inside the school for an additional 34 minutes before leaving. Even though there were hundreds of regular planes in the air at the time, including a reported potential 12 hi-jacked planes still not located. The presidents itinerary was publicly announced 4 days prior to the attack, so his where abouts were known at the time by amyone who was interested, and I would think after the 2nd building was attacked, security would and should have been number 1 priority. just a couple curious wonderments that I have...there are many more, such as who headed up security at the Towers? This should have been mentioned somewhere in the reports.
Why was the 'evidence' immediately loaded on ships and sent to china for re-cycling without a moment of examining, especially when we had witnessed a never before event, hi-rise buildings (3) one that was never compromised by the attack, directly or indirectly, and 2 that were hit by planes and collapsed very suddenly, within an hour and half after the initial building was hit, keeping in mind that jet fuel was the aggragate, the stimulant which doesn't burn, never would reach the 2800 degree f. temp needed to melt or effect the concrete enforced steel beams. THERE was never in the history of hi-rise engineering a collapse ANY building collapsing, even buildings fuels by higher temps and buile to sub par standars. The Towers were built to advanced and expert standards. There is no mention of the light being on and power still in the building up to the time of the collapse. Why was it reported by the fire dept located across the street from Tower Plaza who arrived within 10 minutes of the first attack, that there was structural damage inside the lobby on the 1st floor after hearing an explosion near the elevator? Even in the strongest imagination there was no logical answers to these and many more questions. I love my country as I am sure that you do and I am not blaming my government, but someone did a very clever thing that day...many had to be involved but to what degree and by how many, we need to know. Thanks and trust me, I understand and relate to your willingness to drop this conspiracy implication...a conspiracy can start at 2...how many more? we may never know, but we need to try. good luck, and if you have solid, believable scientific evidence i am right there with ya, i want to see it...God bless America! We have to remove the stench so our land can be healed...just sayin...

Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Justyn Time ()
Date: June 04, 2015 07:44PM

Why do you asume that the planes activated any demo trigger? It could have been remotely activated are manually from ground zero, anywaher actually? I am not going to even respond or attempt to debunk the story that has obviously had time to grow, look back, they were talking 'collapse' right from the moment of the attack. Was there precidence for their concerns? Never in the history of hi-rise structures has, or HAD there been a single one that collapsed, this includes building hit by planes, started with gasoline (which by the way can accelerate to much higher temps) electrical fires that exploded generators and other fuels, office fires, controlled fires etc...one even burned in Manilla for 16 straight hours and is in use today! So why was the mentioned by several tv reporters? There were 3 that day, highly impossible, especially when neither plane reached the strongest part of the building, which simple logic would dictate that the side hit would cause an un even collapse even if possibe...and tell me why the president, while hundreds of cival aircraft were still in the air, and a reported potential 12 hi-jacked planes were still not located, why he wasn't rushed out to a secure location immediatelY after the 2nd plane hit"? Instead he stayed in that school another 34 minutes! His itinerary was public four days prior...think man! Not saying our government did this, just like all of the German government was responsible for the things Hitler did, but somebody has answers and names...look for them now!

Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: mark w ()
Date: June 12, 2015 10:22PM

"maximum temperature of a fully developed building fire can reach 1800°F....common steel losees 10% of its strength at 450 C (840 F), and 40% at 550 C (1022 F). At temperatures above 800 C ( 1475 F), it has lost 90% of its strength"

Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: mark ()
Date: June 22, 2015 05:12AM

okay, ignoring the jet fuel argument for a second. Have we all forgotten that a fucking plane hit each tower? I don't know about you but common sense for me says that a plane hitting a tower at cruising velocity (or any velocity really) would do a number on some steel beams

Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Bush ()
Date: June 27, 2015 05:08AM

You're right.

Dank fuel can't melt steel memes either.

Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: anonymous construction professional ()
Date: June 30, 2015 02:34PM

Completely ignoring the irrefutable evidence of towers 1 and 2, building 7 also collapsed in a controlled demolition. That's when I started questioning the official story. Building 7 was hit by zero airplanes. A conventional office fire using combustibles such as paper, plastic, wood furniture, carpet, etc doesn't burn nearly hot enough to cause a collapse that could only have been a controlled.demolition. If you soaked that entire building with jet fuel (not to mention the sprinklers they have EVERYWHERE in government buildings, it's still not hot enough to do anything but warp a little. Refer to the hundreds of other similar buildings that burned until there was nothing but metal and masonry left. Not a single one has ever.collapsed worldwide, even in cases where the building codes aren't up to New York City construction.codes. QED.

Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Brad ()
Date: July 01, 2015 05:13AM

Wait, you're saying that the Governmennt let Japan attack Pearl Harbor 4 years after they attacked us??? Maybe your stories would be more plausible if you knew history... "Dec 7, 1941 is a day that will live in infamy"

Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Jacob ()
Date: July 24, 2015 08:46AM

This is for all the conspiracy theorists saying jet fuel cannot melt steel.

I have not studied the melting points of steel and the maximum burn potential of jet fuel. I will just for the sake of argument admit that by itself ignited jet fuel cannot melt steel. Lets examine what happened on that day, a giantic air craft traveling at about 500mph crash into a building. You could argue they slowed down due to lower altitudes but I would argue it was probably faster. If your goal is to bring down a building you would want to be traveling as fast as possible. The force from this impact causes crazy energy to be released on the structure of the building.

Did anyone study how hot steel gets when you blow it up all at once? If you don't know I can tell you it's a hell of a lot hotter than just slowly burning it in a contolled environment because all of the energy from the fuel is being released at the same time. Of course some of the fuel did not expload which is what fed the fire probably at the temperatures listed above. But the earlier heat generated would not disspate immediately if would stay in the steel and the surrounding area because metal is a great conductor of heat.

The massive energy transfer from the explosion into the building could easily be enough to melt steel or at the very least compromise the support beams of the building and cause it to fall. Even without a the pressure from a whole building on heated weakened steel could cause it to melt. Also the rubble is not a sealed environment. This means at some places in the rubble fires could continue to burn.

Even if you think all I have said is bs let's examine your theory. The government used thermite to bring down one of the most monumental buildings representing the free market in our country. The planes were just decoys allowing them to carry out this operation. Okay that makes some logical sense. I am just looking at this logically. So they use thermite to bring the buildings down after the planes have struct and had enough time to "melt" the steel supports of the building.

Sure this makes sense, wait it makes no sense at all. If you do not know explosive material is very unstable. That is why it's called explosive material. If you rig two massive buildings to expload with highly unstable material and send a giantic metal fireball into that building do you really think it would not expload on impact? As soon as any of these military grade explosives are exposed to a spark, they explode. So I think it's safe to say a giantic explosion and fire would cause these materials to go off and bring down the building instantly.

The only plausible way to work around this obvious truth is that the explosives were hidden on the lower levels away from the planned crashes. The pressure heat and vibrations the massive crash and explosion above would still be enough to set these unstable materials off. Even if somehow they didn't set them off watch how the buildings fell. The tower hit second fell first at an angle. If you blow out the base of a building if falls on top of itself. If it were a controlled explosion it should have fallen straight down. Watch any demolition video. Also you've agrued that the plane hitting the building and its fuel cannot damage the steel support beams so it had to be a controlled explosion.

Setting a building to fall at an angle is almost impossible to do. You would have to blow certain specific parts of the beem at the same instant and you would see explosions on the lower end of the building in the video. The other tower looked more like a demolition but if it was you would still see explosions at the base of the building.

It is very easy to conclude that these were not controlled demolitions just by how the towers fell. The second plane hit at a lower angle which compromised the support of the building faster. Since the supports of the building were crippled it fell at an angle. Now when I say angle I mean angle of impact. The second plane flew into the second tower lower and actually flew into some of the support beams while the first plane did not. This is why the second tower fell first and at an angle. Even though the first tower fell more like a demolition it clearly was not. There were no explosions going off at the base of the building, it just gave way under the enormous heat and pressure of the plane crash.

Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: John ()
Date: July 24, 2015 06:44PM

I know this is a long time ago but I was just wondering , how would a skyscraper fall if the steel was weakened? Straight down like the wtc or?

Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: frank lee wright ()
Date: August 03, 2015 02:34AM

The reason people say " Jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is becàuse something caused the molten steel, the fused steel/concrete conglomerates, the red hot girders - all reported by people involved in the clean up at ground zero. Jet fuel can't...therfore, SOMETHING ELSE must have prompted those conspicuous results.
I have no problem with the idea of steel weakening at low temps and collapsing the building where the impact occurred. However, the global collapse of either tower can not be explained without re- examining some basic physics i.e. Newton's laws of motion , gravity etc.

Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: pdubbgson ()
Date: August 06, 2015 04:59PM

AGREED. and also note the structural beams that got taken out from IMPACT as well... with the weakened steel at hot temperatures. The weight of the building alone BENDING the steel produces heat and friction. I would imagine that could look as if the steel had been melted. If you take metal and bend it back and forth and touch the bend it feels hot (friction.. you can try this with a paperclip). I think its a combination of all these effects.

Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Phil ()
Date: August 12, 2015 03:00PM

It has been envisaged in the past, have you heard of project northwoods?

Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Aslan ()
Date: August 25, 2015 05:49PM

Those buildings already had thermite installed. The fact that people even think that those buildings could've come down from being on fire is almost more sad to me than the idea that American citizens were behind that atrocity.

Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Brandon Bessire ()
Date: August 26, 2015 05:33PM

I have over thirty years of making fires. I do camp fires, cooking fires, use cutting torches, and even played with molten metals. It is pretty cool when I can use wood to generate enough heat to turn metal into a soft enough substance that I can shape and use. And I learned this without a degree. So it is not hard for me to understand the idea of conductive heat and metal weakening. I have also made fires so hot in my own backyard, that i have buried them, soaked with water, and unearthed them three days later to find hot ambers. And all I used was wood. I can only imagine what I could do if I had more intense material, and yes the longer a fire burns, the un-radiated heat does build and intensify. The WTC fires were not open air, it was alot more like an old brick oven, and they can generate enough heat to melt metal.

I also have twelve plus years in the construction business. And money is a beast. Corners are cut everyday, not to mention material is not always up to snuff. And steel, like it or not does not stay strong forever. The constant swaying of the building is enough to weaken the steel.Yes safety codes call for material to be able to handle loads and events up to 5 times there expected daily performance, but when you are building the tallest building at that time, the fact is you have no way to accurately account for all the conditions it will ever encounter. And I am sure no engineer fathomed the idea that a plane of the size and magnitude would impact the building. So the event at hand was far beyond what was ever intended for the building.

Now the impact itself is the first point of failure, and the formulas for strength and endurance change since more stress and flexing fatigue is placed on the rest of the steel. If you have ever bent metal with your hands back and forth till it breaks you know that this process by itself causes heat. And concrete, when heated, it explodes. An engineer can proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that water can pass through cotton, but being a man of common sense, I will unzip my pants to take a leak. I have worked for years with engineers, and just because it works out on paper does not mean it works like that in the real world.

So my point, in my uneducated opinion is this; Build you a tower in the desert, let stand for so many years flexing in the wind, have time to let the concrete completely cure, and try your best to recreate all the events over the years that the building experienced. Then fly a jet into it and see what happens. But until you do this no one will prove their point.

It took decades before a man was able to reproduce the "magic bullet" shot that killed JFk, but after years of research and trial and error, it happened. Yes there are one in a million events that happen everyday, and for some reason they still happen even though the odds are against them.

We can complain, whine, and point fingers all day long, but you honestly will not change the past. Yesterday happened, today is here, and tomorrow is coming, I prefer to spend my time in today. And I am thankful that each day I can walk around not being held to my past choices and mistakes is a good day. I do learn from my past, and show my thankfulness for not being held accountable by not doing my old behavior. I also make an effort knowing that what I do today will be my yesterday tomorrow. In other words, I try not to do stupid stuff today so I don't have to fight to get out of my mess tomorrow. Learn and move on, and be thankful you can move. This is a start to a good day.

Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: kev ()
Date: September 01, 2015 03:55PM

What a load of rubbi5sh

Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Big E ()
Date: September 04, 2015 09:37PM

Correct and well said ! Some people just are blind and dont want to believe it the truth is science !

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

©2020 WorldAeroData.com.