On 9/11 for WTC steel 2 melt the temp must b like a blast furnace,jet fuel must have burned off quickly.Truth?

Answer 1

Truth? No...Lunacy.

It does not have to melt.

It only needs to twist and buckle...then it falls like a house of cards.

Get it?

Answer 2

Here's the truth. There has always been a "lunatic fringe" in this country, ready to believe anything. The people who believe the 9/11 crap are the same type that believe Elvis is still alive, that the moon landings were staged in a Hollywood set, and the U.S. government has an alien spacecraft in Roswell. Oh yeah, and a gang of Cubans killed JFK. The 9/11 conspiracy deal appeals to people who aren't well educated, and young (inexperienced with life.) I don't personally know any well educated person who buys into this crap. Not one. It's all the people who are poorly educated and have poor analytical thinking skills. What I find more interesting is who seems to be behind it. It's the Micheal Moore "hate America" crowd. These people are slick Hollywood types who make propaganda movies designed to fool poorly educated and gullible people. What is Hollywood good at? They are pros at taking fantasy and making it look believeable on a movie screen, and then making a few bucks off it. That's what is going on here. Don't be a sucker for such propaganda. There is absolutely no way it could have ANY truth to it. There is NO WAY. It's a bunch of crap designed to fool uneducated people. PS. I'll address the plane "issue." The Empire State Building has totally different construction than the WTC did. The Empire uses internal steel frame, where the WTC used an experimental external frame, to cut down weight and materials. The Empire is built like a brick shithouse. The plane that hit the Empire State building was a much, much lighter 1940s vintage propeller plane. It didn't have nearly as wide a wingspan, which limited the scope of damage. It didn't have nearly as much fuel since it was only doing local practice flight. Most importantly, it didn't hit with anywhere near the same velocity. It was flying slow. Everyone who has had college physics knows that speed is the single biggest factor in how much force (kinetic energy) something has in a collision. People who have never had college level physics would not understand this, and be easily fooled by propaganda playing on emotions rather than real science. To compare the Empire State Building crash to the WTC crashes is assinine. Specifications: B-25 (bomber that hit Empire State) Weight: 20,000 pounds wingspan: 67 ft. Fuel capacity: 975 gallons Boeing 757 (hit WTC) Weight 255,000 pounds Wingspan: 124 ft. Fuel capacity: 11,500 gallons Anyone who says these two planes are comparable, well, let's just say that math & science probably weren't their best subjects in school. LOL!!!!! Kent in SD

Answer 3

No one is saying the steel melted. The problem is that steel gets dangerously soft at relatively low temperatures.

Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500 deg F, & when mixed with furniture, rugs & paper NIST estimated it would reach 1830 deg F. Steel loses 50% of its strength at 1100 deg F. At 1800° it loses over 90% of its strength

==> This is why structural steel in buildings is fire-proofed by coating the steel with plaster or concrete.

Instead of encasing each column in heavy concrete, (normal fire proofing) the WTC designers relied on 'sprayed on' fire proofing which can be knocked off with your finger . Unfortunately, this did not get applied to the steel completely & a lot more got knocked off by the jets

On top of this, numerous supports were knocked out by the jets, & this was actually the main cause of the collapse.

Photographs show the columns bending inward. This is clear evidence of steel weakening.

See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/......... for a nice movie explaining what happened.
---------------------------------
NIST confirmed that the steel was heated to dangerous temperatures by examining the fallen beams. When steel is re-heated, as it was on 9-11, it gets "annealed." NIST used annealing tests to calculate the temperature the steel was heated to & it is consistent with failure of the steel super-structure. Also note that a explosive device does not heat steel. It cuts right thru it.
---------------
The jet fuel was not burned in one flash. Experts estimate that the jet fuel burnt for 10 minutes starting a fierce fire of the rugs, desks, papers, etc. This was an unusual fire because it was spread out over wide areas. A usual office starts in one single place.
--

Answer 4

I am a career fire officer on a metropolitan department. 15 yrs experience.

The conspiracists are right a normal structure fire does not melt steel. But thats really irrelevent as to why the towers came down.

Common temperatures in a structure fire routinely cause the failure of metal buildings. (Did you happen to see the concrete and steel bridge that collapsed just a short time ago due to a tanker fire below it? the tanker did not strike the bridge, just burned under it)

As the steel beams are heated to around 600 degrees F or so they lose about half their tensile strength. Thats why a blacksmith heats steel so it is possible for him to bend it,

(you'll also notice that better quality wood burning stoves, heat exchangers in furnaces and boilers, fire rings. engine blocks in cars. etc. are maid of cast iron (not steel), since cast iron can take much higher temperatures without deforming, unlike steel)

Along with the steel weakening it also expands, in a large building like the WTC that expansion can be several feet. But because the beams are held rigidly at both ends tremendous tress builds. One of three things then happen. The beam buckles under the stress and fails, the beams pushes over the columns that support it, or the connetions between the beam and column fail. All these are bad.

Large buildings like the WTC have their steel elements coated with a spray on product that is call "Fire proofing", it looks almost like the cellulose insulation you have in your attic, it does a good job of protecting the beams and columns from the heat of the fire until it can be extinguished. Unfortunately it also has about the same consistancy as that cellulose insulation in your attic, it comes off very easily, you can pick it off with your fingers. The reason the steel is sprayed for protection is simple, steel will NOT hold up to the heat of a fire. Once that fire proofing was dislodged by the planes at impact the steel was unprotected and destined to fail.

We approach any building that has a steel construction as a disposable building. If we cant get to the fire quickly and knock it down we back out.

If you doubt me, or you believe I'm not really who I same I am, walk into your local fire house.... Go ahead..... the guys will talk to you.......Visitors are always welcome.... Ask them whether the heat from just a common fire can cause a metal building collapse. Its taught to us all during training, textbooks have been written about building collapse during firefighting operations for decades. You may find it interesting that they would much rather fight a fire in a wood frame building since there is a much smaller chance of the building collapsing on us.

As a matter of fact many of my co-workers went to ground zero to search the rubble, none of them came back with or to this day have any doubt why the towers fell. I also volunteered but never got the opprtunity to go.

If you were truly interested in the subject you would at least spend a few minutes of your time talking with a person that deals with these issues everyday. Surely you want to be better informed than just reading something some unknown guy writes on the internet. What are his qualifications, is he a firefighter? Engineer? Has he ever published a research paper, if so did his peers feel he was credible.

Surely you dont want to spread something as imflamatiory and accusatory as this without doing a little research first.

Of course there is always the possibility that all firefighters are also in on the conspiracy, tens of thousands of us. And we will all just lie about the subject.

In closing if you want to believe that the planes werent really hijacked, the government did it. etc. thats up to you. I wont waste my breath arguing.... But the contention that a fuel fire could not have brought down the towers does not hold water and you should really drop that part from your arguement.

Lt. Doug M
Ohio

Answer 5

On the second impact most of the fuel exploded outside the building thats what that big orange flamey thing was. And yes blast furnace conditions are needed to even bend industrial grade steel. The black smoke is indicitive of an oxygen starved fire, (no more than 600C). Steel conducts heat meaning the heat actually spreads along the steel therefore it doesnt focus itself in any one place unless there is forced oxygen applied to that point. The firefighters radiod back that there 2 isolated pockets of fire, they said they only needed 2 lines to put the fires out....then the survivors were gagged and ordered not to say a damned thing about that day. WHY???? they got their revenge tho when they released the audio tapes all over the net......the only problem is morons out there dont give a shitt so the official conspiracy theory is all people have heard, so being the morons they are, its all they believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZI3wo7Ta-w

Answer 6

The point a lot of people are missing is that the firefighters that were in the towers that day say that fires were confined to about 10 floors of a pair of 110 story buildings. Now how did fire melt or weaken steel on all the floors that weren't on fire to cause a total collapse like that? Also you see people standing in the open chasm of the buliding in which the plane flew into. Now if the fires were that hot that they were melting steel, did the people who were standing in the hole the plane made in the building, wear extreme heat fire proof clothing that day to survive the massive heat needed to melt steel?

Answer 7

So the explosion + kinetic force of the planes impact + the conbustables, (thats anything that can burn, to the moronic question asker) the badly maintained fire preventative paint on the steel frame & girders, all combined had nothing to do with the resulting buildings structural failire and collapse!!

Do some research before Trolling for a Flame War a s s wipe.

Answer 8

Melting and weakening are two different things. Melting is turning the steel to liquid. Weakening of the steel is at a much lower temp, and will make the steel mot as strong so the weight it was supporting causes it to collapse. The structure below is not designed to take that much weight crashing down on it all at once, so that gives. And it's just a change effect all the way down.

Answer 9

The steel beams didn't melt the fire caused the steel beams to weaken and collapse.Go visit your local Fire Dept. and talk to some of the Firefighters they can tell you how after a fire the steel beams will be bent and twisted and this in buildings much smaller than the WTC.

Answer 10

one more time, the steel only had to be weakened, gravity is constant on the earth and the weight pulled the WTC toward the earth. Weakened, kind of like when you keep bending a paper clip or metal coat hanger , the metal gets warm and weak.

Answer 11

The steel didn't have to melt... it just had to heat enough to be weakened. That doesn't take anywhere near as high a temperature.

A simple charcoal "fire" of a barbecue grill is hot enough to take the temper out of modern railroad track...

Your tin hat needs a new lead liner.