hippiewannabe wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:05 pm
Amskeptic wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:48 pm
. Rebar is not the steel I was talking about. The vertical steel columns that surrounded the nine elevator shafts hardly softened with rich jet fuel fire. No way. Then, only a couple of floors down, the steel never even got hot . . . at all. So how did those vertical columns just give it up at the speed of free fall?
Understand that I will not automatically launch into a conspiracy theory. I am strictly trying to understand the physics and I am aghast at how building 7, which had an even more localized low-temperature fuel fire (diesel), managed to pancake so perfectly.
Colin
This may be an example of what I was talking about. I have explained a few times, the FEMA report goes in to detail, and Popular Mechanics reinforced in layman terms. Virtually any fire, be it paper, wood, plastic, jet fuel, diesel, is plenty hot enough to weaken steel to the point it will fail it's intended structural purpose. If you don't want to believe the well understood and experimentally confirmed physics, as explained by unbiased experts, I'm not sure what purpose is served by further discussion.
Are you attempting to shame my skepticism? YOU have explained a few times?? Don, many many many buildings, some without the rigorous inspection protocols of this country! have endured fires all across the world, long fires with lots of "paper, kerosene, wood, plastic, diesel", whatever, and they did not collapse. As a matter of fact, I don't think we HAVE an example of a steel framed skyscraper collapsing ever from any fire. Stop with your parochial blinders and pat explanations and pre-ordained conclusions. I AM KEEPING MY MIND OPEN. I HAVE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED.
I read that Popular Science article, and I find the writing gets a little strident. I also know that FEMA is populated by people, and their report glosses over a number of observations. It is just a fact. Their report had some glaring holes. The NIST reports were not peer reviewed and are not scientific reports. I don't have to "believe" an author. I will however *consider* (not to be confused with "belief") the real science and the real physics that is far and away past Popular Mechanics. Just for fun, and to round out your own "beliefs", try this video. No armchair speculator here, he did the science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
So go ahead, Don, explain the presence of molten steel at the 9/11 site, and a few other *observations* that suggest an alternative to your pre-ordained conclusion. I cannot at this time accept conclusions. I do, however, welcome fellow questioners who do not shame me with their reminders of how much they have explained to me. No, there is more here than meets the eye of the Popular Science readership.
Colin
(p.s. another tidbit to test your mind, your beliefs, whether or not you are open or closed to all kinds of information:
At a press conference in Nov 2008 Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST stated (correctly) that it was impossible for Building 7 to have collapsed at free fall acceleration due to resistance from the steel structure below. The problem was that its easy to measure the acceleration of the collapse so the when the NIST final report was released a month later they were forced to admit in it that the building fell in free fall for 2.25 seconds. They have since completely refused to explain how. This is one of hundreds of problems with the official investigations.
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles