9\11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

[gambit]

Now where gambit is showing the picture of hot iron rod at one end---put this rod statight up---weld it to a top plate and bottom plate--put approritate weight on it and start heating the metal rod---with the weight on top---you will be surprised to see the rod bending and going out of shape long before reaching its melting point.

The column will indeed shear of where heat and stress fractures have caused weak points.

Another example is this...

Chapter 2: Heat Straightening Basics - Guide for Heat-Straightening of Damaged Steel Bridge Members - Integrated - Bridge - FHWA

To illustrate how steel can be permanently deformed using these two properties; consider the short steel bar in Figure 5a. First, the bar is placed in a fixture, much stronger than the bar itself, and clamped snug–tight (Figure 5b). Then the bar is heated in the shaded portion. As the bar is heated it tries to expand. However, the fixture prevents expansion in the longitudinal direction. Thus, the fixture exerts restraining forces on the bar as shown in Figure 5c. Since the bar is prevented from longitudinal expansion, it is forced to expand a greater amount laterally and transversely through it’s thickness than in an identical unrestrained bar.

All the readers has to do is look at the associated image to the paragraph above and turn the image vertically.

 

[gambit]

Can a fire alone initiate the collapse of a building? Absolutely...

Fire Protection Engineering Archives - Historical Survey of Multistory Building Collapses Due to Fire

A fire-initiated full collapse of a textile factory occurred in Alexandria, Egypt, on July 19, 2000.6 This 6-story building was built of reinforced concrete, and its fire started at about 9 a.m. in the storage room at the ground floor. Fire extinguishers were nonfunctional, and the fire spread quickly before the firefighters could arrive. An electrical short-circuit accelerated the fire spread. At about 6 p.m., nine hours after the start of the fire, when the blaze seemingly was under control and subsiding, the building suddenly collapsed, killing 27 people. Figure 3 shows a photograph of this collapse.

And this building was only 6-stories tall...!!! No aircrafts hit it...!!!

Concrete has certain fire response behavior that often made it more preferable over steel...

High-Strength Concrete and Fire | Portland Cement Association (PCA)

]Concrete can not be set on fire like other materials. As a non-combustible material, it does not emit toxic fumes, produce smoke, or drip molten particles when exposed to fire, unlike plastics or metals. Also, concrete does not add to the fire load in a building. For these reasons, concrete is readily accepted in building codes as having a high degree of fire resistance. In many applications concrete is virtually fireproof. Concrete’s excellent performance in fire is due to its main constituent materials—cement, water, and aggregates—which, when combined, form a material that is non-combustible and has a thermal conductivity equal to 1/21 that of steel. It is this slow rate of heat transfer that enables concrete to act as an effective fire shield, not only between adjacent spaces but also in protecting reinforcing bars and internal concrete from damage.

When concrete finally succumbs to fire, it does 'spalling'...

“Explosive spalling” is a term used by laboratory technicians to define a spall that occurs with a loud popping sound. This does not mean that the concrete creates projectiles endangering occupants or emergency responders. The spalled concrete typically drops to the floor around the column or may even remain somewhat attached. Since major spalling occurs when temperatures exceed 815 degrees C (1500 degrees F), occupants or personnel would not be in the area of the spalling.

Basically, the surface of the concrete structure is 'explosively' weakened. As it is continually exposed to the fire, more of the concrete will exhibit this explosively spalling behavior, inevitably leading to a gravity assisted collapse of this vertical loading bearing structure.

So if a CONCRETE building that is merely 6-stories tall can collapse, how is it that loony 9/11 conspiracy theory believers persists in the claim that no building has ever collapse due to fire?

 

[sur]

First...It is a false argument ...These columns are load bearing, or more specifically, VERTICAL load bearing. That mean there is no need for any fire source to reach four-digits temperature. Look at the blacksmith below......

Why NOT look at load-bearing & more specifically vertically loaded buildings rather than black-smith hammering from one side... Like Nat Geo used wing-less object to demonstrate why there was NO damage by wings,,, u r using black-smith's example... Nat Geo placed much thinner beam on one side & placed tons of weight on it,,, like ur black-smith....

This litteral furnace that burnt much longer than WTCs labels u as "False"... Above that this building had angled design that should be easier to collapse than vertical WTCs... including WTC-7...

Conspiracies are yours...


============

& another one slaps in ur lying face...





==============

& yet another one... in ur very own Philly... see the load bearing floors on fire...!!!

 

[gambit]

Why NOT look at load-bearing & more specifically vertically loaded buildings rather than black-smith hammering from one side... Like Nat Geo used wing-less object to demonstrate why there was NO damage by wings,,, u r using black-smith's example... Nat Geo placed much thinner beam on one side & placed tons of weight on it,,, like ur black-smith....

Provide a source whenever you make this sort of claim. Else you are posting drivel.

 

[sur]

How about fire in Spain...




=============

& another one bites the dust.... or NOT... in Venezuela...



===========

& a plane crash in NYC...

 

[sur]

Provide a source whenever you make this sort of claim. Else you are posting drivel.

Ur guardian "Sparkling guy" has that half-baked proof ready for u many posts back,,, go grab it....

 

[ptldM3]

hmmmm... true... so would is melt the metal fully? and if it melted the metal wouldent we see some or alot of molten steel pouring out of Wtc i mean LARGE AMOUNTS OF IT not the one the where dripping out i seen that photo and video ....

Most of the aircraft aluminum burned out of sight, but some was seen pouring out of the impact zone, many conspiracy theorist claim it was thermite, but we know this to be false. Upon the aircraft's impact of the WTC and the subsequent explosion, the aircraft debrise spread out, and although most of the aircraft's aluminum burned up some remained as seen in the picture below.


http://img684.imageshack.us/i/wtc5debris.jpg/

baically what i am trying to say is that wouldent it melt alot of the metal and instead of dust pushing out ward wouldent a big splash of molten aluminum come towards the ground which can be seen from a clear prespective.

The reason you seen 'dust pushing out' is because dust is lighter than aluminum.

To reiterate my point aircrft aluminum burnes anywhere from 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius and from other crashes we know that the aluminum from aircraft has burned, we also know that the NIST has conducted experiments where they burned office furniture and the temperature reached 1,100 degrees C near the ceiling, we also know that the fire was fed by materials other than office furniture, we also know the fire had adiquett oxogen. Earlier i have explained why the towers fell but i will again reiterate esspecially for those that havn't read my earlier posts.

There are two things conspiracy theroists overlook whether because of their stubbernness or unwillingness to except truth, and that is how the towers fell. Upon impact the WTC's columns were either destroyed or badly damaged, this is fact, and as a result the load of the building transfered to other columns, thus those columns that were not taken out were exceeding their load capacity. Now lets bring the fires in to the picture, we know that the fire should have reached atleast 1, 100 degrees--at the very minumum, this is not enought to melt steel which melts at 2750 F. However, with some of the column supports taken out we know that other columns took the burden of the weight; factor in a fire of 1650 F and those columns will start to deform and warp, and given the emense wight on the remaining columns 1650 F would likely be overkill.

Those columns, specifically the horizontal ones start to sag and pull in the outer vertical columns as shown in the picture below:



The end reult was that the vertical columns and the horizontal columns seperated and as a result the building calapsed. The picture below shows right when the building started calapsing, notice how the outer walls are sucked in--again this is definative proof that the fire was hot enought to cause the horizontal columns to sag. The following picture speaks for itself, no thermire and no dynomite could have caused this:

 

[sur]

Ohh i am sooo soooo much sorrry for the double post....

 

[ptldM3]

SUR

How many of the building that you posted had fully loaded passenger aircraft smash into them at 500+ mph? Further, you are assuming all building are constructed the same--they arn't.

 

[gambit]

How about fire in Spain...

Not very smart, are you?

For the Windsor Tower in Spain, the building has steel columns above the 17th floor and that section of the building did collapsed...

Case Studies: Historical Fires: Windsor Tower Fire

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.

That section supported the theory that given sufficient time, steel under continuous and rising heat can fail catastrophically. Whether or not the building itself will collapse is a different issue and for the Windsor, the building itself did not collapse because below the 17th floor, it was concrete and the fire at that level was challenged, whereas the fire above the 17th floor was not challenged.

 

[sur]

...How many of the building that you posted had fully loaded passenger aircraft smash into them...

Only one ... WTC-7....

Not very smart, are you?...

Nops, can't beat u,,, Because I cannot conveniently go after one of the whole lot ignoring the rest,,,

ONLY perimeter slabs fell,,, what happened to the "pancake" did u eat it all...!!!

 

[ptldM3]

Only one ... WTC-7....

It was also damaged and burned for 7 hours, i covered the WTC 7 several pages ago.

 

[sulemani keeda]

9\11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

Height of conspiracy fetishism !!!

 

[usman3313]

Watch the whole episode.

 

[zagahaga]

i just want to shed light upon this .... from this solid evidence that is shown it is soo much....... i mean its right and truth fully true..... that 9 11 was aan inside job .... hope it opened minds of alot of people