9/11 - Who believes?

Agreed --it's just too bad the fires were isolated and there's no physical way the heat generated was anywhere close enough to weaken/melt the support beams. Let's pretend we didn't witness most of the jet fuel burning up and dispersing on impact, let's assume it's all inside the building at the center all nice and pretty. A carbon fuel fire with all the combustible materials in the building couldn't have created a total collapse in such short time, especially not three times in one day. Steel structures do not collapse in this manner, as it has never happened before. We can search every database there is, the entire history of the world, and all we're left with are steel skeletal remains hanging in the sky after a complete building burn out. We have investigated steel structures which burned for days with no collapse with much hotter fires. People keep going back to "yeah...but they were hit by planes!" and those people forget the towers were designed to withstand multiple hits from 707's crashing into them. Also, building 7 was never hit by a plane, burned only a short time, then mysteriously fell into its own footprint in a few seconds at free fall speed.

And if your statement were true at all, then firefighters wouldn't have repeatedly reported "molten steel, like lava" running down the elevator shafts. (again in the video I posted earlier). So, which is it? Fire weakened the steel with magic, or fire melted the steel with the help of a pet dragon? Either way, all the evidence I've had brought to the table suggests that the fire theory is bogus.

 

I respectfully disagree. The facts do not support your theory.

Let's assume "game over" means you're right, though. Say the fires did burn hot enough to weaken steel. Let's say it's 100 times worse than anything we can even theorize. This still does not explain the collapse of all three buildings, nor the conflicting reports from people who were at the scene, and especially the molten hot steel which was at ground level and below ground and kept cleanup from continuing... for 21 days.



Math problem:

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). Add aluminum from planes, even 100 times the amount actually present, and we're still nowhere close because something would have to bring aluminum to the same temperature as steel in the first place (which requires twice as much heat comparatively) and we're not talking about powdered aluminum, here which would oxidize in an exothermic fashion. So, unless the airplanes somehow reproduced a hundred times over in mass, merged with only the steel support columns, and turned into aluminum powder...not going to happen. And building 7 had no airplanes, no aluminum.

The so called "experts" we see on television and who work for government 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. The eyewitness accounts and all the actual evidence suggests the "experts" are wrong, because of the presence of molten steel.

Conclusion: Something had to cause the structural steel to melt, and that takes heat in excess of 2750°F. Therefore, the entire argument which claims all that was needed is for the steel to be weakened is false.

 

More on aluminum and fire: http://www.alfed.org.uk/files/Fact sheets/11-aluminium-and-fire.pdf

We're not talking about aluminum in a powder form, which would react and oxidize exothermically.

"The thermal conductivity of aluminum is around four times that of steel and its specific heat twice
that of steel. This means that heat is conducted away faster and a greater heat input is necessary
to bring the same mass of aluminum to a given temperature, compared with steel. Where an
aluminum structure is exposed to the heat of a fire, the relatively high thermal conductivity enables
the heat to be rapidly conducted away from the exposed area."

 

That's all well and good, but we've still got holes in the theory claiming the aluminum from planes caused this to happen, when building 7 remains the giant pink elephant in the room and molten steel is denied by the .Gov but mentioned by countless eyewitnesses and firefighters. Maybe if we incorporate some Harry Potter magic into the equation, the aluminum theory might work.

 

Hey Brokor, Have you ever considered the BTUs of energy that was expended into the structure by the building collapse, itself... A math wizard such as youself, maybe should calculate that, and take that into consideration...