WTC1 Linear Rate Ejecta Traversal

[mthai66]

"1/2 of a building "

1/3 of a building

[XPronger]

Great work, thanks.

911 was an inside job.

[phoenix16lynx]

again you cant see inside if the external beams stood not burning at all does not mean all the innard ones did not. support beams all on one side are not going to hold. thats easily proved with a game of jenga.

[femr2]

That makes no sense at all. You must be getting tired. lol.

[bweazel]

Did you just compare a skyscraper to stacked wood blocks? No wonder you believe the OT.

[phoenix16lynx]

again jsut because FEMA or NIST says something happened doesnt mean it did. i mean seriously they're not god they could not see through the smoke and tell what was going on. if the fuel didnt spill all at once then that means the fuel kept flowing out keeping the fires going keeping the metal hot. the metal hot not hot enough to just snap but enough to bend and weaken until finally the pressure of the bending metal does snap it and collapses that right there is physics you can test with a torch

[femr2]

I asked you to respect my wishes and investigate WTC 7 free-fall before commenting further, and you are still going round in circles, clutching at ill-conceived straws, with apparently little grasp of the technical nature of the discussion.

I've been patient enough with you.

Bye.

[femr2]

"again jsut because FEMA or NIST says something happened doesnt mean it did"

Couldn't agree with you more, the lying scumbags.

[femr2]

"they could not see through the smoke and tell what was going on"

Again, totally agree.

[phoenix16lynx]

this has nothing to do with what im talking about ive never read one drop of info on wtc 7 for all i know your right on that one.

[femr2]

"ive never read one drop of info on wtc 7 for all i know your right on that one. "

Well may I suggest you spend some time and find out.

I have given you that one fact. Please respect my wishes and investigate it properly before commenting further.

[phoenix16lynx]

i have no intentions of arguing that at all you brought it up.

[phoenix16lynx]

the huge fireball doesnt mean ALL the fuel was burned.

[femr2]

"the huge fireball doesnt mean ALL the fuel was burned. "

I never said it did. I was replying to your comment implying it was not all 'spilt'

I said it burned off after about 15 minutes. (Which is a generous figure)

[phoenix16lynx]

its a debate not a discussion.

and you are yet to give me one piece of refutable info. everything youve said ive been able to challenge if it was irrefutable then there would be no challenge and i would admit you were right.

[femr2]

"everything youve said ive been able to challenge"

No. The other way around. Remember this is, as they say 'my house'. Your comments here are not going away, and one only has to read them to see how you have not refuted anything I have said. I have provided valid and correct information, and backed it up with external collaboration when you've asked (aka FEMA stating the fuel burned off after 'a few minutes', and the reason why the type of fuel would do so.

[phoenix16lynx]

also as i stated even if the fire burned out after 15 minutes. the steel would still remain heated and weakened and maybe it would take another 25 minutes. like i said a red hot piece of metal under pressure might not break right away but will eventually as long as it stays red hot and under pressure. ive stated this fact ive seen this been done before as well. youve offered no proof that this couldn't happen besides saying supposedly the fire burned out in 15 min which theres no proof.

[phoenix16lynx]

you mention physics but you havent stated any. same with numbers ive provided more numbers then you.

who says the fuel burned up in 15 minutes. there is no proof to that at all nor does it make sense. theres no evidence that all the fuel instantly leaked or. the thick black smoke pouring out blocked seeing inside the building.

as for the wind. hurricane winds arent what usally destroy and kill people its the debris that hits. a 100mph wind with no debris wont damage a sky scraper. a plane wil

[femr2]

"who says the fuel burned up in 15 minutes"

Since jet fuel (kerosene) boils easily and its vapors ignite easily, it burns off rapidly. FEMA admits the fuel must have been used up within "a few minutes", I can grab a quite from NIST...

[femr2]

"theres no evidence that all the fuel instantly leaked"

HUGE fireball on impact ring any bells ?

[femr2]

"a 100mph wind with no debris wont damage a sky scraper"

The force a 100mph wind applies to the surface of the towers was IMMENSE. Orders of magnitude more than a small dart/plane.

We were discussing the towers ability to withstand and absorb energy, which is why the design lateral load is important.

[phoenix16lynx]

hurricane force winds dont compare to a plane that can move faster then hurricane winds. not to mention hurricane winds in ny dont even get heavy debris up that high but thats irrelevant. if you take a metal rod and cut it with a blow torch to the point that its almost breaking then let it sit if the cuts are thin enough and the metal is still hot it will weaken and snap especially if its under pressure. not to mention there were reports of fuel leaking down stairs and causing more fires

[femr2]

"hurricane force winds dont compare to a plane that can move faster then hurricane winds"

The force of hurricane winds pressing against the entire facade of the building is orders of magnitude higher than the force of a small skinny plane hitting the tower. Don't say things without the numbers handy, as I have them.

[phoenix16lynx]

so we have a building that was made so long ago that it was probably not prepared for a plane of that size and capable of that speed to hit it. in fact thats exactly what we have since todays technology wasnt available at the time they were built. and we have no idea how long the fires burnt or how far they spread. and they wouldnt have heated to there weaker points for some time not to mention as i said jet feul burns at almost 300 C hotter then they need to to weaken the steel enough.

[femr2]

"as i said jet feul burns at almost 300 C hotter then they need to to weaken the steel enough"

You are going round in circles. The jet fuel burned off after 15 minutes. There was no jet fuel to feed the fires, to heat the steel, to make it soften. Which it did not do.

[mthai66]

I like the implication that we're better at building skyscrapers today than 40 years ago. Not hardly.

[phoenix16lynx]

when you reply you dont hvae to hit reply its jsut easier if you comment ill know what parts of my statements youre talking about since we're the only ones here.

ok in controlled demolitions most of the time they only blast out a few floors not even always from the bottom. the weight from the rest of the building and the momentum it carries can often bring down 2/3 of the building.

[femr2]

"when you reply you dont hvae to hit reply its jsut easier if you comment ill know what parts of my statements youre talking about since we're the only ones here."

Sorry, I prefer to know exactly what comment I'm replying to.

[phoenix16lynx]

also the plains are made as light as possible as you said but by no means is that actually a light weight. not to mention the speed it hit causes more damage a bullet dropping on someone wont hurt but it being fired will kill. more steel beams probably broke from the shear force of the plane and its speed.

[phoenix16lynx]

it wouldnt have destroyed a very significant volume of the floors just taking out more of the support holding the other floors up. we also have to remember the building was made to hold the weight of an take the impact of a plane 20% smaller then that one. as long as the fire burned long enough spread around enough all the steel would weaken enough and if 1 floor were to collapse the momentum would blast debris out and the weight would drop the rest of the bulding.

[femr2]

"it wouldnt have destroyed a very significant volume of the floors"

What I mean is:

You have a planar floor, flat.

The aircraft hits the floor and makes a big hole in it.

Do you now agree that this would take out a large volume of the floor itself ?

[femr2]

"the building was made to hold the weight of an take the impact of a plane 20% smaller then that one"

The differences in size and mass are not massive, but again, if the mass of the 'blown up pieces of' the plane was too much for the supports, they would fail early, not an hour later.

[femr2]

"as long as the fire burned long enough spread around enough all the steel would weaken enough"

There is no evidence, and certainly a very very low probability that fires would be able to heat the steel to a high enough temperature. I can understand that you have been told heat softened the steel many times, but if you do more research you will find that it is a supposition intended to explain something that could not have occurred as you have been told. We'll get to that.

[femr2]

"so we have the force of the plane wiping out steal beams left and right"

As commercial aircraft are built to be as light as possible, they are surprisingly 'thin'.

Much of the kinetic energy of the aircraft was consumed by severing of the external columns, which would have fragmented the aircraft. The ensuing explosion would have fragmented it further. The central core columns would only be receiving impacts from mall sections of the aircraft, reducing the possibility of damage.

[femr2]

"weaken to a state that it could not support the building"

At 'collapse initiation' large volumes of pulverised material were ejected laterally from the area OF 'collapse initiation'. The Official Theory depends on a series of floor impacts to build up enough mass for global collapse.

At collapse initiation, this series of impacts had not occurred, so there is no force available to create the pulverised material seen.

[femr2]

"so we have the force of the plane wiping out steal beams left and right on different floors"

Some external columns were severed, as is seen in all the impact video's. There is only guesswork relating to the core, but estimates are around 15-20% of core columns compromised. The whole building was built with the ability to safely hold the mass at any point if up to 70% of the columns failed.

The building would have fallen immediately if the supports could not withstand the mass.

[phoenix16lynx]

i just picked this video at random to start debating here with you. ok tha plane was bigger then one floors height and did not hit it directly flat. so we have the force of the plane wiping out steal beams left and right on different floors. then the fuel leaks and burns. the steal begins to weaken takes sometime to weaken who knows maybe it took 40 minutes to weaken to a state that it could not support the building.

[femr2]

"ha plane was bigger then one floors height and did not hit it directly flat."

This would destroy a significant volume of the mass of the floors that are supposed to have caused 'collapse initiation' ny separating from the external columns and internal core.