>>602538769 They did it, about 5 years ago. They had a steel beam over burning jet fuel, and they put a large object on the beam. After a few minutes, the beam softened, bent, the large object fell off, then the softened beam collapsed into the fire. It didn't liquify the beam, but it softened it enough for it to lose strength, and collapse.
>>602538769 The two biggest shills on television? That would be a good idea. If they do something to show how to "beat the law" you can guarantee 99.9% of the time it's impossible even though you know fine well it's entirely possible. Remember when they "busted" the myth you can beat the entirely beatable breathalyzer? Remember when they "busted" the myth you can beat the entirely beatable speed camera if you're going fast enough. You've even seen ones where they'll bust something and then say they didn't or completely confirm something and say it's only plausible. That was the reason most people stopped watching. The early seasons when they weren't known worldwide with a huge following were actually done properly with proper results. Suddenly Obama asks them to test something and they're official disinfo agents working for the NSA.
>>602538769 Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts 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. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
>>602545299 The jet fuel was the ignition source, It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and the towers were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down
the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F
>>602538769 There's more to the problem than that question. There's the free-fall rate of falling along with the plumes to the sides of the buildings in areas not yet affected by the collapse. And then there's the basic improbability -- no fire has ever before or since taken a skyscraper down. And mere debris took wtc7 down? Please. How stupid do they think people are? I have YET to meet a structural engineer or architect who buys into the story.
>>602549333 You realise how diesel/kero/jet a1 burns right? All that black smoke pouring out of the building, that's the jeta1 burning poorly, not receiving enough oxygen which it never will unless it is fed oxygen directly. There's numerous reasons it's used for jet engines, it's ease of handling, low natural burn temp and ignition difficulty being 3 main ones.
>>602542908 Firstly, you are comparing burning temperature of kerosene to burning temperature of kerosene derivative. One does not merely call them equal unless one is potato. In the middle of that burning inferno the temperature would not be the same as the burning temperature of the fuel as read off Wikipedia. There are more principles to account for as the initial fire spreads and ignites more materials.
Second you don't need to melt any steel. You know the bits before melting? When it goes soft and weak? Well, a soft weak steel beam can't keep the building together...
Not forgetting that there are hundreds of cases of solvent fires where you'd think the same thing of the temperature but you find bending of tanks and other metal things.
>>602550300 Nope because you only need to destabilise one little bit before the mass resting above the weakened point to fall, then the lower areas collapse under the force of the top floors falling on them. That's why it happened top down with the top part roughly in tact in the instant it began to fall.
1:NOWHERE did I imply it didn't or can't weaken the building - but I am stating it can't "melt" steel when burning in an atmospheric state, not going to happen. 2:Jeta1 has massively similar burn properties to Kero and Diesel, Diesel engines are run on it regularly - see, most diesels in the US military >In the middle of that burning inferno the temperature would not be the same as the burning temperature of the fuel as read off Wikipedia. 3:So what you are saying is the other flammables in the fire are what is actually contributing to the heat and the jeta1 will simply be starving other combustibles of oxygen. 4:My entire point in every one of these threads is the Jeta1 by itself doesn't melt the steel, it simply creates the ignition point and brings other combustibles up to ignition temperature and the subsquent inferno is what does the harm.
I try to tackle the whole "jet fuel" thing first as for some reason the world seems to think it's some sort of super fuel which burns with the fury of a small sun, when in fact it's a fuel which burns horribly when it isn't supplied with direct oxygen sources.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.