I made this comment to a post earlier today, but I thought it was worth its own post. I can't believe I had never looked this up before. Am I missing something? A jet engine is OPTIMIZED to burn jet fuel the most efficiently possible. Jet fuel burning in a building fire is NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO REACH THAT TEMPERATURE! (and even that would not melt steel!) This discrepancy, if as simple as it appears to be, should have been broadcast loud and far long ago. Perhaps this simple fact, if indeed as simple as it seems to be, so clearly indicates the official 9/11 narrative absolutely can't be true, is the reason it seems to have been buried all these years. Please correct me if this is not as simple as it seems.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (103)
sorted by:
Even IF there had been enough energy, the steel would fail slowly and certainly not uniformly. It would buckle differently at different times & places, and slowly so.
Liquid fuel of any kind would only heat up the surface of 2-inch thick steel beams for a few seconds, and then the fuel would be gone. There is a reason why steel framed buildings have never in history collapsed due to fire.
I know what you are picturing, but there is no such thing as a steel-framed building floor with no resistance.
Potential energy cannot be "gained" unless you lift something upward.
All the potential energy was already in any building mass that was higer than ground level.
You are probably referring to kinetic energy.
And any such energy encounters resistance from the structure below it, as was made very clear in the segment that starts with this picture: https://i.postimg.cc/26rL7D2k/1.jpg
There is no such thing as a steel-framed building floor with no resistance.
You don't understand structural mechanics and the strength of materials. When a column is subject to a load exceeding its failure limit, it fails right then and there. No such thing as struggling under a load greater than its limit load. It can buckle if there is room to buckle, or it can shear. Shear is faster. And if a whole array of columns has reached its collective load limit, it doesn't matter what column goes first. It shears in a tiny fraction of a second. The loads are distributed at the speed of sound in steel (~4000 ft/sec)---and the array is STILL under an excessive load, so the whole array fails in series over a span of much less that a second.
If the core columns were enveloped in fire, and their insulating coating compromised by the scraping of the airplane body passing among the columns, you have basically iron, which has excellent thermal conductivity. The fires burned for 58 minutes in the South Tower and for 1 hr and 42 minutes in the North Tower. The columns were in what amounted to a stove, and there was no cooling.
Again, you don't understand column failure. When the limit load is exceeded, there is no resistance. That is the definition of a limit load. Let's say you are big and strong...but somebody drops a locomotive on you. You are going to provide any "resistance"? You are going to be squashed like a bug. Concrete or rock will crumble (mini-shears) and metal can and will shear if it cannot buckle.
The upper mass is gaining the potential energy from its height. Fine, call it kinetic energy. This is a trivial quibble.
You are being dogmatic over a point that is not true. I don't think you went to engineering school. When the first floor-collapse occurs, the upper mass of the building falls the height of the floor, call it approximately 20 feet. That will take about 1.1 seconds, and results in an impact speed of about 36 ft/sec (24 mph). So then you have the mass of the upper floors times the speed to give the momentum. The resultant force additional to the mass of the upper floors is this momentum divided by the time it takes to apply itself to the lower floor (clearly less than a second). The evidence is that the sum was higher than the second floor's limit load. The process continues, gaining more mass with each floor and increasing momentum.
It is all a matter of what the limit load is and if it is exceeded. There is NO resistance to a load that exceeds the structural strength of the member. Any time delay is only due to the finite speed of sound in the member as the stresses are communicated into it. That is all the vaunted thermite charges do: reduce the limit load on the structural member, so it must fail at that point.
Not enough heat was ever generated to make steel columns of that mass fail. And even IF enough energy had been provided, failure wouldn't have happened uniformly at the same time in any inferno.
Some historic fires burned for 8-10 hours on thinner steel structures, became much hotter as well, and no collapse ever occured, not even buckling. The heat hypothesis doesn't hold water. The twin towers were also massively overbuilt. https://steemit.com/wtc/@lighteater/another-steel-framed-tower-block-remains-standing-after-a-major-fire-unlike-on-9-11
Steel doesn't suddenly go from super hard to complete failure. It fails gradually as it heats up.
The crushing of floors below means that there is no cumulation of force... and everybody knows the same mass was easily supported by the floors below for decades.
Thermite was indeed provenly used, and there goes the narrative.
Well, our level of disagreement is that you don't want to admit any arguments from engineering, chemistry or physics. You make assertions that you at least cannot back up with any calculations. And you don't take into account the virtual certainty that aluminum was burning as well as kerosene. Aluminum is ferocious hot, giving off a lot of heat energy. And, regardless of temperature, when a material is exposed to a greater than limit load, it fails. It does not valiantly resist. That is why it is called a failure level of stress. You completely blank out the effect of momentum in creating high levels of compressive force. Have a car run into you and find out what all that momentum can do to your boy. Thermite was not "proven" to be used. All they found was the combustion products of burning aluminum, some molten metal, and sulfur from the gypsum drywalls. You have shut your mind to a new thought.
There was never any more compressive force on the intact floors than the intact building created from day one.... Plus some falling momentum, which pretty much got cancelled at every floor that resisted its crushing force. This should be obvious to someone seemingly as versed as you in physics.
Nanothermite was found and proven chemically.
That was made very clear in a peer reviewed paper which was cited numerous times in the truthseeker movement. You either haven't done your homework, or have shut your mind to the truth.