|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
from the American Society of Safety Engineers
| Quote: |
| The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400 deg F to more than 2,800 deg F. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable ... The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared 'extinguished' on Dec. 19, 2001. |
those temps support steel melting temps.
how did the fires get so hot? hydrocarbon fires do not burn nearly hot enough. pressure may explain it but the a difuse flame in an oxygen poor environment would counter balance if not make it less hot.
so if there was no molten steel, how did the fires get so hot?
and you claim there was no molten steel, yet the recorded temperatures of the fires would have been melting the steel.
ur facts are falling apart.
or can you explain this too? remember those links to the proffesionals you have been citing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800� to 1500�F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750�F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength � and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100�F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800� it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832�F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down." |
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4#steel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800� to 1500�F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750�F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength � and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100�F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800� it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832�F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down." |
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4#steel |
joo, it explains why the steel didn't melt pre collapse.
the link you provided does not address molten steel found in the rubble pile.
in fact the link you provided only further supports my claim....the collapse could not have melted steel without CD
read your links.
you efforts are so useless
read "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" and you'll wake up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800� to 1500�F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750�F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength � and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100�F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800� it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832�F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down." |
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4#steel |
joo, it explains why the steel didn't melt pre collapse.
the link you provided does not address molten steel found in the rubble pile.
in fact the link you provided only further supports my claim....the collapse could not have melted steel without CD
read your links.
you efforts are so useless
read "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" and you'll wake up. |
he's posting the popular mechanics article!?! hahahahahahahahahaha!
oh, and I thought screwloosechange had all the answers! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
Firemen are not metalurgists. They only know they are looking at some hot liquid. They cannot verify even that it was liquid metal, let alone steel. They do not constitute eyewitnesses.
. |
I'm sure a structural engineer knows what molten steel is.
| Quote: |
An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8 |
(previously cited) |
I've read this report. They were, however, quoting hearsay evidence about the molten steel. When traced back, there are no eyewitnesses to actual molten steel.
And firefighters rubber boots will melt at temperatures well below the melting point of steel.
The only qualified person ever quoted, later revealed that he was never on the site, but was quoting others.
The firemen do not seem to know the meaning of "molten" and only saw some hot liquid that could even have been hot, dirty water.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF MOLTEN OR LIQUID STEEL.
It's time to admit the "truthers" are liars and quacks, and get on with a new, honest re-investigation of the twin towers collapses. |
i've posted my expert opinions (see current events forum)
WHERE ARE YOURS? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800� to 1500�F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750�F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength � and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100�F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800� it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832�F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down." |
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4#steel |
joo, it explains why the steel didn't melt pre collapse.
the link you provided does not address molten steel found in the rubble pile.
in fact the link you provided only further supports my claim....the collapse could not have melted steel without CD
read your links.
you efforts are so useless
read "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" and you'll wake up. |
Okay then this does.
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800� to 1500�F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750�F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength � and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100�F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800� it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832�F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down." |
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4#steel |
joo, it explains why the steel didn't melt pre collapse.
the link you provided does not address molten steel found in the rubble pile.
in fact the link you provided only further supports my claim....the collapse could not have melted steel without CD
read your links.
you efforts are so useless
read "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" and you'll wake up. |
he's posting the popular mechanics article!?! hahahahahahahahahaha!
oh, and I thought screwloosechange had all the answers! |
Ok
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800� to 1500�F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750�F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength � and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100�F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800� it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832�F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down." |
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4#steel |
joo, it explains why the steel didn't melt pre collapse.
the link you provided does not address molten steel found in the rubble pile.
in fact the link you provided only further supports my claim....the collapse could not have melted steel without CD
read your links.
you efforts are so useless
read "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" and you'll wake up. |
he's posting the popular mechanics article!?! hahahahahahahahahaha!
oh, and I thought screwloosechange had all the answers! |
Ok
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm |
joo, been over this million times
they theoretically show, on paper, that there was enough energy to melt steel. that doesn't mean anything in reality.
again. a box of matches has enough energy to make an 8 cup pot of coffee
theory=closed sytem
reality=open system
try making an 8 cup pot of coffee with a box of matches at home.
you will quickly discover the fallacies.
and who contributed to the above research by 'debunking 911'?
| Quote: |
| Thanks to ScottS, Shagster, Arthur, Mark Ferran, NEU-FONZE and David B. Benson for their research |
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm#molten
are you kidding me? haha. you are a funny man joo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How do you know it doesn't make sense?
and many the 9-11 conspiracy theorists are holocaust deniers. That tells about them |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
How do you know it doesn't make sense?
and many the 9-11 conspiracy theorists are holocaust deniers. That tells about them |
haven't you done energy equations in school?
the first thing they teach you is the difference between a closed and open system. cook the coffee with a box of matches example...try it....it will never work. energy leaks out at every second. energy is not lost, it just can't be concentrated completely on what you desire it to be concentrated on. thus, one could NEVER cook an eight cup pot of coffee with a box of matches even if there is enough theoretical energy.
i know because it is common knowledge. but if you'd like a link i will get back to you after i walk my dog. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
