The "chop, chop" nit should be directed at me, instead of Mr. McKee. But since you drag me into this, I might as well address your concerns.
Mr. Limey wrote:
How about that factual backup for your comment that the fires would not have got hot enough to weaken the steel. Come on man, chop, chop!
Having problems with the Google, are we, sir? You could learn a lot by entering into Google phrases like "steel blast furnace", "temperatures weakening iron", "temperature steel loses strength", and "temperature jet fuel burns".
What temperature does steel lose strength? At about 550° C (1,000° F) steel is at 50% strength and at about 800° C (1472° F) structural steel loses 90% of its strength. The properties of steel vary widely, depending on its alloying elements.
What temperature does jet fuel reach in open air? 287.5 °C (549.5 °F).
Already you should be seeing a problem that jet fuel can't heat steel hot enough to lose 50% of its strength, and this is before the heat conductivity of steel in a structure is factored in. And this is before we observe that the buildings were over-designed by at least a factor of 2 and that NIST said the jet fuel burned off in the first few minutes (assuming of course that it was a commercial jet).
The next two problems are that:
"(1) modern office contents, including furniture, computers, floor and wall coverings and curtains are not a rich source of fuel and generally incorporate fire-retardant materials and (2) modern office contents are spread out through a large volume of space as well, creating a diffuse, lower-intensity fire."
On top of this, the fires were asymmetric. They'd burn hot in one area and migrate over time in search of fuel. When fuel is consumed in one area, the fire intensity in that area ebbs, lowering the temperature and thereby making the observed sudden & symmetric failure improbable from the fuel sources available. Firefighters who made it to the levels of the fires in one tower described what they saw and what it would take to put them out, "two isolated pockets of fire; two lines".
Here are some links to get you started. Educate thyself.
- http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel
- http://science.howstuffworks.com/iron.htm
- http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/fire.htm
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_furnace
And if this pokes your interest, I'm sure you have a local community college that has welding courses.
Were you to take a welding course, both gas welding and arc welding exercises would quickly demonstrate to you the energy required to weaken or bend steel at a localized spot. And due to heat conductivity of metal, the larger the piece of metal, the longer it can take to heat to that point. In any event, you'll be using metal pliers to carry your test piece of metal to the water tank to cool off in an impressive display of boiling bubbles.
While you are making your welding observations, do not let it slip your attention that neither surplus community college furniture nor jet fuel (among many potential fuel sources) are used to achieve the weakening of iron/steel. And were you to assemble a pile of such, ignite it, and dangle a steel beam (carrying some load as well) over it, you'd learn what is and isn't possible.
If you want to be effective as a 9/11 Truth debunker, you should at least know and understand the arguments that the 9/11 Truth Movement is making. For example, we can take your "burning" questions and potentially find answers, like in the experiments of Jonathan Cole.
Although you state that you are "already in possession of the truth," you seem to be having difficulties imparting it. I sincerely hope that with the above you will stop consistently failing to comprehend the simplicities.
Señor El Once
No comments:
Post a Comment