Pentagon Plane Crash...Was It Really A Plane?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There are only three physical states; solids, liquids, and gases. If it was initially a solids, as the steel beams were, the next state would be one where it is melted. It doesnt matter how how the substance gets, it will still be a solid until its melting point is reached. All materials have a certain heat capacity, and the increasing heat of the burning fuel would naturally be taken on by the steels heat capacity. It would definitely heat the steel, but not weaken it.

 

Easy counterexample: blacksmithing. They heat the metal so it becomes soft and malleable.

 

It's not about states of matter.

[hotcommodity]

Easy counterexample: blacksmithing. They heat the metal so it becomes soft and malleable.

 

It's not about states of matter.

 

Lets say the metal was at a point of malleability, it would need to be beaten to bend, yet nothing was there to apply that force after the explosion. But I will take your points into consideration and study this further.

 

I'm not one to think I know it all. I always like to say that if you can sway my opinion by way of fact or logic, then so be it. I suppose the steel melting issue is up in the air for now. I'll edit this post and get something intelligible put together sometime soon concerning other matters, as I'd like to hear everyones take on them.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Lets say the metal was at a point of malleability, it would need to be beaten to bend, yet nothing was there to apply that force after the explosion.

There was always the rest of the building on top that would apply a nice force.

[insane_alien]

hotcommodity, the weight bearing steel structure was supporting thousands of tons. this provides some pretty large forces. now, steel has a limited strength. you can for example sit 3 billion kg of steel on your standard I-beam and expect it to hold.

 

the forces in the WTC were a lot less but i was going for overkill to make the point, steel is not some magic, indestructable substance. the point is there is a load limit to steel structures.

 

WTC was over engineered, there was a lot of redundancy in its structure. this still had a limit. a fair amount of the supporting structure was taken out by the impact but it was nothing too serious, the buildings could still stand safely, but were still compromised and under some stresses that weren't usually there.

 

so, we have a steel structure that has had its weight bearing capacity severely reduced and its on fire. not just any fire, its aviation fuel so its hotter than if just some papers had caught on fire and burned for a bit.

 

now, heat reduces the load bearing capacity of steel. a 25*C Ibeam will support more than a 1000*C I-beam.

 

The steel didn't heat up to some magic temperature where all of its load bearing capacity disappeared, it was gradually decreased until some key components failed and then the structure pancaked for the rest.

 

pancaking, as it happens, would produce a nice neat collapse unless on the way down it encountered one side was significantly stronger than the other which would cause it to spill over. we're talking 1.5-3 times stronger here. if that was the case then the engineer who built it should be shot for either extreme negilence(weakening one side) or bad design(making one side stronger than the other with no good reason).

 

but, that didn't happen. it was neat. its an example of a good piece of engineering failing well.

[hotcommodity]

There was always the rest of the building on top that would apply a nice force.

 

If this is the case, then only one corner of the building would have been heated sufficiently enough to cause a collapse. The weight of the building on top of it would have fallen to the side, which it may have to some degree, and fallen sideways into another building, which didnt happen. It all came down very neatly, and for the most part, in an inward fashion. I can see how this might have happened if the heat was dispersed equally over the entire floor, but it was only heated in one corner.

 

With respect to building 7, lets look at a map of where it was in relation to the wtc towers: http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/wtc_map.htm

 

You can see that the building is nowhere near the wtc towers, or the heavy debris from the crashes. Even if the explosions caused a few fires in building 7, which, I have no clue how they possibly could being so far away, then that wouldnt have brought building down. By insanes and your admition, it takes alot of burning, at high temperatures, and alot of impact, to bring down a building. And lets say for the sake of argument that fires could indeed cause the collapse of a steel structured building. If that was the case, and there were a few fires in building 7, common sense would tell you that it would take a long time for the fires to consume so much material that it may cause the collapse of the building. You cant use one set of logic for the collapse of one building and a totally different set of logic for the collapse of another. Recall the first attack on the wtc when bombs were set off near the pillars holding up the structure. Not even bomb explosions could cause the collapse of those towers. You may also recall the oklahoma bombings, where the bomb took out a big part of the building yet there was no collapse. It takes alot of power to bring down such a giant structure, yet you believe a few fires can do the trick. This is completely illogical.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If this is the case, then only one corner of the building would have been heated sufficiently enough to cause a collapse. The weight of the building on top of it would have fallen to the side, which it may have to some degree, and fallen sideways into another building, which didnt happen. It all came down very neatly, and for the most part, in an inward fashion. I can see how this might have happened if the heat was dispersed equally over the entire floor, but it was only heated in one corner.

You'd have to prove that. There were fires all over.

 

You can see that the building is nowhere near the wtc towers, or the heavy debris from the crashes.

You have no justification for the last part of that sentence.

 

Even if the explosions caused a few fires in building 7, which, I have no clue how they possibly could being so far away, then that wouldnt have brought building down. By insanes and your admition, it takes alot of burning, at high temperatures, and alot of impact, to bring down a building. And lets say for the sake of argument that fires could indeed cause the collapse of a steel structured building. If that was the case, and there were a few fires in building 7, common sense would tell you that it would take a long time for the fires to consume so much material that it may cause the collapse of the building. You cant use one set of logic for the collapse of one building and a totally different set of logic for the collapse of another.

It did take a while.

 

Recall the first attack on the wtc when bombs were set off near the pillars holding up the structure. Not even bomb explosions could cause the collapse of those towers. You may also recall the oklahoma bombings, where the bomb took out a big part of the building yet there was no collapse. It takes alot of power to bring down such a giant structure, yet you believe a few fires can do the trick. This is completely illogical.

The first TWC bombing was against one major column (I think) and didn't do significant damage.

 

It is unfair to compare with the Oklahoma bombings. There's a significant difference between knocking out half of a building and weakening the whole building.

[hotcommodity]

The map I provided shows where major debris fell. And when I say it would take a long time for fires to cause a collapse, I mean a really really long time, as common sense would tell anyone. People dont pay millions of dollars to build structures that can be brought down by a few fires. With respect to the oklahoma bombing and the wtc bombing, I'm simply showing that it takes more than a few fires to bring down a giant structure such as the wtc's or building 7.

[Pangloss]

It takes alot of power to bring down such a giant structure, yet you believe a few fires can do the trick. This is completely illogical.

 

It defies logic to think that fire cannot melt steel. How to people think steel is made?

 

Arguing with true believers holds no interest for me, but what I do find interesting is how the 9/11 attacks called upon our perception of engineering forces on a large scale. I found the whole thing just morbidly fascinating. People will be debating the exact details of the WTC collapse for many years, and learning all sorts of interesting things from the way those forces acted and interacted under those conditions. It's one of the few consolations we can take from that day.

[hotcommodity]

It defies logic to think that fire cannot melt steel. How to people think steel is made?

 

Theres a fine line between the smelting process, and a fire in an office building. Lets not mix apples with oranges. And I'm not a "true beliver," if you were refering to me. I simply point out inconsistencies in the official story, but I have no scruples pointing out inconsistencies in conspiracy theories either.

[Ndi]

One of the buildings was severed sideways, a third of that tower was out. There ought to be a significant difference in support. Also, fire started on that side and, with a bigger opening for oxygen, most likely burned hotter, weakening the side more than the other side.

 

It was also rather away from the top, so as an addition from the weight the stresses were higher from any personnel moving, wind, etc. The almost-mid part of a tower is the most stressed by compression and most likely to crack.

 

If you imagine the best way to tip a building over would be to slice it, mid-zone, sideways, taking out as much of the square as possible so long as you don't completely miss a corner. The execution was perfect, it was the worst you could throw at a building if you wanted it to collapse sideways. Yet it did no such thing.

 

* I understand that fire weakens steel. I also understand that there are standards that apply to other buildings around the world AND in US. Those have also been under fire. Steel was strong enough in all other cases. It stands to reason that this steel was also enough. It is not the logical conclusion that this steel was special and collapsed.

 

* I understand that the structure was supposed to be uniform, but that's just the thing, a perfect building smacked sideways falls sideways. It can only fall vertically if the building was offset and the blow evened it out.

 

* If a nice building always falls straight down (even though they control-blow 2-3 stories, not to mention whatever WTC had), then why do they pull them in 3 months? Just smack a column, it will just fall over neatly.

 

* You can say what you want, I own a Zippo, it runs on a naphta-kerosene mix. It's volatile, toxic, and burns fast and hot, like any good fuel. The kerosene in a plane smash splashed all over AND BURNED. The building was open, it burned like frigging hell in under 10 minutes. If it didn't burn it must likely evaporated (lowering temperature), dripped, whatever, kerosene is not a blob that stands there. After 50-60 minutes of whatever that was, the fuel was long gone. Long, long gone. Most of it burned in the fireball. You're left with wood fires and office supplies, and paper doesn't melt steel.

 

Also, quoting kerosene burning temperature is wrong because this is no candle with controlled flow, enough oxygen, a smoke drain and people with white lab coats around. It was a flash and some after burn.

 

In a bunsen burner, gas burns from <500 degrees Celsius (non-color) to >1500 (blue-white), depending on mix and pressure, etc. Point being that because "gas burns at 1500*" in a Bunsen has no bearing on an open flame (<500*).

 

Jet fuel (JET A-1) burns:

Open air burning temperatures: 260-315 °C (500-599 °F)

Maximum burning temperature: 980 °C (1796 °F)

 

280°C steel does not melt. 1000°C might do something, but it burned as open flame, nobody held a beam into the exhaust of a jet engine. I know it can't hold as a jet engine exhaust.

[insane_alien]

Jet fuel (JET A-1) burns:

Open air burning temperatures: 260-315 °C (500-599 °F)

Maximum burning temperature: 980 °C (1796 °F)

 

IF you discount any conditions which can lead to hot spots. its not as if they were the first steel buildings to collapse due to fire anyway. and the others didn't have thousands of litres of burning jet fuel in them.

[Callipygous]

I like how you keep mentioning "a few fires" as though its some trivial thing. this is not like someone left a toaster on and the napkins went up in a blaze. jet fuel burns a wee bit hotter than that.

 

"280°C steel does not melt."

i think everyone on both sides of the discussion has stated that the beams probably did not melt. you have a building that is already under extreme stress, daily just from the weight, but especially now with some of its supports taken out. the beams dont have to melt, they just have to get softer.

[Ndi]

"280°C steel does not melt."

i think everyone on both sides of the discussion has stated that the beams probably did not melt. you have a building that is already under extreme stress, daily just from the weight, but especially now with some of its supports taken out. the beams dont have to melt, they just have to get softer.

 

I never meant melt literally, I also stated I understand the concept of softening. However, I think that 280 degrees is not enough. Are you trying to tell me that you can steam a building down? How close to collapse must it have been to collapse at 260°? Wouldn't wind count more?

 

Also, steel was protected in most places, it takes time to heat so much metal to the same temperature as the flame. If you set a 300° deg fire on a beam, after 10 minutes the beam will be 60°. It takes a lot of time to heat so much metal, remember, steel transmits heat to the rest of the structure, cooling, you need a very hot, concentrated flame to heat a structure that loses heat like crazy. Heck, it's better as a radiator than it is a structure - a Bunsen could do, because it burns very hot, localized, and the heat doesn't dissipate that fast.

 

But if you have a beam in open air and you put a flame on it, hold it there for an hour and nothing happens, do you expect anything to happen? Unlikely, the temperature most likely stabilized. You'll argue that whole beams were in flames so dissipation is minimal, still, it's an issue if we discuss weaken.

 

If we investigate at 1500°, then it doesn't matter, it's close enough to melting point for the structure to weaken. But if we talk 260° every crack counts because I don't care how conspiracy lunatic you think I am, I have serious doubts WTC collapsed because of an open flame.

 

Oh and, since it's confession thread, no, I don't like conspiracy theories because it's easier to ask questions than to answer so it's bound to happen. There will always be ghosts, aliens, governments, etc, there to get us in some people's minds. But every now and then a valid point is raised and all valid points deserve at least an investigation. The collapse of the towers is nothing else than pure physics - no conspiracy there. Who set the charges is CT.

[insane_alien]

but we're not talking about 260*C we're talking about ~1000*C and probably up to around 1400*C in places. and its not a tiny fire like you describe. its a raging inferno of jetfuel and anything else flammable. an enormous amount of energy.

[Callipygous]

"You'll argue that whole beams were in flames so dissipation is minimal"

 

yes, thats exactly what ill argue. its not like there was a jet fuel camp stove sitting under the beam with a healthy breeze blowing by. there was an explosion, followed by an office fire stoked by jet fuel, inside a fairly closed space. sure, there was a gaping hole from the plane, but on the scope of the entire floor, it was mostly enclosed.

[hotcommodity]

"You'll argue that whole beams were in flames so dissipation is minimal"

 

yes, thats exactly what ill argue. its not like there was a jet fuel camp stove sitting under the beam with a healthy breeze blowing by. there was an explosion, followed by an office fire stoked by jet fuel, inside a fairly closed space. sure, there was a gaping hole from the plane, but on the scope of the entire floor, it was mostly enclosed.

 

As was stated above, fuel burns rapidly. All of the jet fuel had to be burnt up within a very short period of time. Unless we're living in the twilight zone, the only fires that could have been present after the explosion are office fires. Again, as stated above, the burning of papers/wood/etc. are not sufficient to melt steel. Additionally, Callipygous, this would not explain why the building didn't fall sideways. If you chop a chunk out of the side of a tree, it falls sideways. Think of the game jinga: http://ajalbv.free.fr/dotclear/images/jinga.jpg . If I pull a a few wood blocks out from one corner, it will fall sideways. If I douse that same corner in lighter fluid, the entire wood structure wont collapse inward, in fact, it wont collapse at all, logic will tell you that a steel structure built by engineers will hold much better than a wood structure.

[Callipygous]

actually, your own arguement helps to explain why the building would not collapse sideways. metal is very good for conducting heat.

 

first of all, if the fire was across the entire floor then the heating would already be fairly uniform.

 

second, your comments on heat conduction only help that. the heat dispersing into the parts that arent under as much direct flame would help keep the softening of the metal constant across the entire structure, helping it collapse as one.

 

"If I douse that same corner in lighter fluid,"

 

it wasnt one corner doused in jet fuel, you dont even have to study it to know that the explosion went clear through to the other side. you can plainly see it in the footage.

[hotcommodity]

actually, your own arguement helps to explain why the building would not collapse sideways. metal is very good for conducting heat.

 

first of all, if the fire was across the entire floor then the heating would already be fairly uniform.

 

second, your comments on heat conduction only help that. the heat dispersing into the parts that arent under as much direct flame would help keep the softening of the metal constant across the entire structure, helping it collapse as one.

 

All of the above is an illogical guess. Again, fuel burns up rapidly, thats why it so explosive. In other words, when the fuel is heated, the reaction is very exothermic, it disperses energy into the atmosphere. The atmosphere has a much higher heat capacity than does the metal, as the atmosphere is expansive, and thus can consume the heat more easily. The heat energy doesnt cling to the metal until all of it is absorbed.There was nothing uniform about the absorbtion of the heat energy, not within the atmosphere, and not within the steel structure. By your own admition, it takes a great deal of damage and energy to bring down a steel structure. Building 7 didnt take on alot of heat or damage, yet it collapsed too, also in an inward fashion I might add. The owner of the building comes on television and speaks about the damage done to building 7, and says "we decided to pull it....just pull it," and it shows the destruction of building 7. He also buys up the remaining buildings in the wtc complex and takes out a multi-million dollar insurance deal just months before the event. Now these are just some of the coincidental events that took place with respect to the collapse of the buildings and the entire event of 9/11. But I guess it was just one of those coincidental days.

[insane_alien]

hotcommodity, i can take a beaker full of kerosene(jet fuel) light it and pour it over a concrete floor and it'll sit and burn happily for about a minute. this isn't a short time. and when you have a LOT more of the fuel, it'll burn longer as it won't all vapourise at once.

 

you seem to think that the jet fuel would only provide a quick flash of heat and then be gone. if it had all went up in a minute then there would be enough pressure to rip the buildings apart and they would have fell much earlier. also, the fireball would have been more impressive.

[Callipygous]

There was nothing uniform about the absorbtion of the heat energy, not within the atmosphere, and not within the steel structure.

 

while were talking about guesses... you have any logic to justify that?

[hotcommodity]

To insane_alien:

 

Your point is noted regarding kerosene. I'm learning from all of you, insane included, but you still cant logically argue the inward collapse of the 3 wtc buildings. And this is my main point with respect to the wtc site, you cant say that it takes an extreme amount of heat and damage to collapse one building, and say a few office fires can collapse another.

 

while were talking about guesses... you have any logic to justify that?

 

Yes, "uniform" implies a perfect spread of the jet fuel and heat, "fairly uniform" implies a fairly perfect spread of jet fuel and heat. It would be quite a trick to slam a multi-ton airplane into a building and get its jet fuel to spread and burn "fairly uniform" over the entire floor. If you want to continue talking about the burning of the fuel, thats fine, but we aren't getting very far so I'll say that I note everyones opinion on the fuel issue. Beyond that, you haven't addressed my last points on the collapse of the building and the overly suspicious ( to put it lightly) actions of the wtc owner.

 

I'll also throw this into the mix: Government officials said that no one ever thought of terrorists using hijacked airliners as weapons, yet two years before 9/11, NORAD practiced drills of shooting down hijacked airliners that would be used as weapons and smash into targets such as the wtc, and the pentagon (pm me if you want this usa today article, and other articles below, the links may stretch the page uncomfortably). Additionally, top pentagon officials canceled their flights for the next morning on September 11, as MSNBC reports. Another interesting thing is that before 9/11, a tv show on fox called The Lone Gunman aired a show where terrorists hijack an airliner and plan to crash it into the wtc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB6EWF3vulc . Again, this is just a small piece of all of the supposed coincidences surrounding the event, I hope we can use logic to figure out whats really going on here.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think logic would work out that you have a nice set of coincidences going, and that you need to do some real investigation so you can find evidence.

 

Logic works beyond reasonable doubts. You have not yet offered anything that proves that the government was involved, only that it would fit if they were. That doesn't mean they did it, that means they could have.

[hotcommodity]

I think logic would work out that you have a nice set of coincidences going, and that you need to do some real investigation so you can find evidence.

 

Logic works beyond reasonable doubts. You have not yet offered anything that proves that the government was involved, only that it would fit if they were. That doesn't mean they did it, that means they could have.

 

I'm afraid reading articles from qualified news sources counts as "real investigation," and you have no idea just how much investigation I've done. I'm not trying to find evidence so I can point the finger at the government as a whole, or any one government official. I'm pointing out inconsistencies in the official story, and if anyone can point them out, then why are they being overlooked by an official committee of intellectuals? Let me say that I think its highly inaccurate to say the government was behind the attacks, thats just plain stupid. You have thousands of smart, patriotic men and women dedicated to serving their country, and they suddenly turn on their country? I wish you would have given me more credit, instead of assuming I would make that kind of assertion.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Inconsistencies in one story do not make another story true.

[bascule]

I'll also throw this into the mix: Government officials said that no one ever thought of terrorists using hijacked airliners as weapons

 

Which government officials are those, and why do you think your as-yet-unnamed sources speak for the government as a whole?

 

yet two years before 9/11, NORAD practiced drills of shooting down hijacked airliners that would be used as weapons and smash into targets such as the wtc, and the pentagon (pm me if you want this usa today article, and other articles below, the links may stretch the page uncomfortably).

 

You might also note the airliner-as-missile idea formed the central theme of Tom Clancy's novel Debt of Honor, in which an airliner was used to destroy the Capitol Building during a joint session of Congress, killing the overwhelming majority of congressmen and the president (and lead to the inevitable promotion of Jack Ryan from Vice President to President)

 

Additionally, top pentagon officials canceled their flights for the next morning on September 11, as MSNBC reports. Another interesting thing is that before 9/11, a tv show on fox called The Lone Gunman aired a show where terrorists hijack an airliner and plan to crash it into the wtc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB6EWF3vulc .

 

Don't forget that Family Guy predicted that Osama bin Laden would sneak through airport security by singing show tunes.

 

Again, this is just a small piece of all of the supposed coincidences surrounding the event, I hope we can use logic to figure out whats really going on here.

 

I see absolutely nothing which I would consider to be evidence in your post. Using logic, I would say that as the claimant you have the burden of proof. Unattributed anecdotes, coincidences, and fictional plot lines are not proof of anything.