Ajax wrote on Sep 21^st, 2019 at 8:13am:


Steel melts at approximate 1,300 degrees C.  The Fires in the WTC were registered to be approximately 1,000+ degrees C.   At approximately 1,000 degrees C, steel expands and weakens.  You seem to believe that the steel must become liquid for a fire to affect it.  Why?

Quote:


The "refractory lining" in the WTC was stripped from the steel structure by the explosion of the airliners in a confined space.  It had no affect on the fire affecting the steel structure.

This is all contained in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006).  I recommend you read it to get the FACTS about what occurred in the WTC. 

The biggest flaw in the controlled demolition theory is motive. There would have been nothing achieved by completely demolishing the towers that wasnt achieved by the 2 planes flying into them. It does not make rational sense or logic for a grand conspiracy to occur by the authorities involving thousands of potential witnesses for no apparent purpose.

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 21^st, 2019 at 2:23pm:


The fires did not burn hot enough to melt steel or for the steel to fail because of the heat it absorbed, the fires as evident by the black smoke were fuel rich diffuse fires which burn between 500°C to 700°C.

This temperature will reduce the steels yield point and ultimate tensile strength but it is not enough to bring down the towers, don’t forget the structural steel in the towers would have had a safety factor of between 1.5 to 3 as standard if not more.

The maximum temperature of the fire would have been realised within the first 30 seconds of the explosion while its radiative heat intensity may have been initially high it was not concentrated as we saw from the blast and most would have gone into the atmosphere, the big fire ball.

What was left of the unburned jet fuel created the black smoke which in itself reduces the radiative heat of the fire even further, so the fires didn’t burn hot enough to melt steel and they didn’t burn hot enough for the steel to fail structurally.

We have seen many examples of building burning for days lit like a torch and yet never in the history of modern high rise buildings has fire brought one of them down, the twin towers are the exception and not the norm.

Now about the refractory lining of the steel structure, while I agree with you in principle that some of the refractory lining would have come off the steel structure around the impact zone ONLY in my opinion not enough would have come of and that’s beside the point because like I said above the fires were not hot enough to cause collapse through heating of the steel.

The refractory lining a few floors further from the impact zone would not have come off.

You make it sound as though all the refractory lining from top to bottom of the steel structure just peeled of once the planes hit.

Refractory lining once it sets is like concrete, trying to get it off is not easy, you will need a  jack hammer, easy to apply not easy to remove.

NIST the people that denied all the non-government engineers and architects who wanted to inspect the site to determine why the buildings fell for future design best practice. The people that instead of creating the greatest forensic site ever over at least 6 months, had the steel cut and shipped to china within a month, these same people that didn’t let anyone else on site bar themselves, you want me to believe those people.

freediver wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2019 at 8:58am:


Thanks FD, you should read up on creep my friend not a very interesting subject but one worth knowing.

Creep doesn't happen in 60 minutes, proof that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.....

I doubt there is a maximum temperature.

Insulation does not fire proof anything. It just slows down the heat transfer. In your idiotic furnace example, it slows it down enough for the furnace to work. You are confusing advertising with physics.

Speaking of a little knowledge being dangerous, you have said there would have been a safety factor of 1.5 to 3, yet by your own admission the fire would have reached temperatures high enough to reduce the strength of steel by a factor of more than 3.

This isn't it FD.

Its an example of modern high rise can take a fire without collapse.