What does this have to do with anything let alone magnesium content in the specific aircraft at hand? How long is "long enough" and how do you obtain this figure? How long does this figure compare to how long the fires were burning in WTC7?

"Would be enough to weaken the steel structure of the building by half"

Hmmm... Can you back that statement up with actual data?

Oh my! So speculation is not speculation if you are self-proclaimed as smart. Got it.

Did you miss the part where I asked you to show links to backup your statements with actual data, and then the part where you provided links in response to my post? Scroll up.

No no no no... Thank you!

What?

 

Haha yeah probably - I am pretty bored right now and this is entertaining.

But yeah, not at work - on vacay waiting for family to show up. Woo.

 

There still many ideas that just do not add up. How is it possible that the 9/11 commissions pancake effect is true? Any affect of that nature would have at least delayed the collapse few seconds longer to hit the ground, but instead went down as fast as gravity. If this were true, even with the severed steel poles around the point of impact, wouldn't there be poles sticking out around the point were the plane hit? essentially I still dont know how magnesium could have went down all steel rods and melted all of them enough to have them break apart as fast as gravity.

Lets say that the magnesium that burned is similar to explosive thermite. The plane exploded on the top 10 floors, how was it possible that the magnesium melted the steel rods in the basement? Sure, it would have melted a few or at least made it possible to break where the plane hit, but I doubt it went all the way down all the steel rods and broke them all.


That rod that is sitting there, perfectly slanted and cut, could not be the magnesium from the plane that melted it that perfect of an angle at the basement.

Remember, we're talking about 47 steel roads all snapping and collapsing at the same time, and ALL the rods crumbling together. Snapped at every level, falling as fast as gravity in a PANCAKE effect.





Building 7 have pools of molting metal too. So unless the plane somehow blew up and expanded into the basement, and then spread into Building 7, through the tunnels. This doesn't seem too plausible either.

Even Nova, was asked to explain the collapse of 9/11

 

The towers collapsed first. jet A + magnesium + other factors (higher winds, etc) = hotter fire = steel weakens faster.

the fact that it has nothing to do with the aircraft composition is my point: an uncontrolled fire of a much lower temperature, left burning long enough, could have brought down the towers... which is what happened in building 7.


did you actually read my previous post?


the English language is not your strong point is it? what i am offering its not speculation. its a logic explanation of the incident with supporting evidence,
care to take a stab at doing the same?

 

my understanding of the "basement" fire relates to the compression of the hot metal mass at the top colliding with the steel supports. effectively, the top of the building became a large spear with a hot metal tip which this came crashing down through the lower floors and into the basement.

bend a paperclip back and fourth... the metal gets hot. similar principals applied (according to what i have read) while the mountain of steel was collapsing on itself.

it is impossible to know how much jet A and other burnable material actually reached the basement floors int he collapse, but you can be certain that, even in the absence of a fire, there would have been an extreme amount of heat (albeit not enough to make steel molten).

so, the heated steel and the fire reach the basement floors in the collapse and are then covered in tons of insulating material (concrete and dust) which is why liquid metal material was found in the rubble weeks after the incident.

while this explanation seems improbable, so to did the idea of a massive terrorist attack seem improbable on September the 10th. I am by no means a structural or chemical engineer, but, its seems to reason for me at least that the physical forces acting in the catastrophic failure of the buildings were far more likely to have cause the fires than Dick Cheney parking trucks full of thermite in the basement.

catch ma drift?

 

Also, saying the rods "snapped" is a bit of a misleading use of language.

technically, it would have been a "compression Failure".

 

I know none of this is going to make sense to you, so its wasted key strokes... but alas.

Try this:

Take some chopsticks. put them in your hands. Break them. Do this a few times. Notice how sometimes the break is clean?

The building collapses because enough of the steel softens to a point that it cannot hold up the weight of itself plus the otehr things it was supporting. Now, all that extra weight that was balanced on the steel that is not there anymore crashes down on other parts of the building, slowly and internally at first. Once it reaches a tipping point, nothing is going to slow it down. Its going to cascade down at the fastest rate it can (speed of gravity? I think you mean terminal velocity, which its not doing).

Lets try another experiment... Get a flat of eggs. Put a McDonalds food tray on it. Put a small, empty cardboard box on it. Put another flat of eggs on top of that, put another Mcdonalds tray on top of that flat and then stack some books on top of that. Break several of the eggs on the top flat. The weight shifting of the books all the way on top will break the eggs on the flat at the bottom and cause the whole thing to crash. Try it! It works!

There is not enough magnesium for it to become molten and flow down, like you are thinking. What happens, is the jet fuel flows a bit and catches other things on fire like furniture, floors, wood, steel, paper and other bits. Those, in turn, catch other things on fire. Pretty soon, you have 7 or 8 floors that are all burning (I bet if you look closely in the pictures, you can see them burn). What happens, is that when they are on fire, and come crashing down, they are still on fire, just closer to the ground. These fires burn where there is oxygen. Since there is a shared basement, they burn through the oxygen there and ignite other materials in the basement and slowly into the other building. Since a typical fire (and this is hardly typical) can get hot enough to soften steel (see above), this causes structural weaknesses and more fires in WTC7 and brings it down the same way you explored in the egg experiment.

I think the problem is that you do not have a grasp of how physics, buildings and demolition dynamics work, therefore you will never understand. You can try to learn, or you can just repeat this ignorant bull**** spewed by others who also dont understand mechanical physics and continue to be a moron.

 

Read all this and then come back to me and tell me what "just doesnt add up".

# ^ Stillwell, Cinnamon (2006-04-19). "The Truth About 9/11 Conspiracy Theories". San Francisco Chronicle. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable. Retrieved on 2008-05-19.
# ^ "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" (PDF). National Institute of Standards and Technology. August 2008. p. 22-4. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTA...ic_comment.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-09-30.
# ^ "Testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley" (PDF). American Society of Civil Engineers. 2002-05-01. http://www.asce.org/pdf/5-1-02wtc_testimony.pdf. Retrieved on 2009-06-10.
# ^ Bazant, Zdenek P.; Mathieu Verdure (March 2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" (PDF). Journal of Engineering Mechanics (American Society of Civil Engineers) 133 (3): pp. 308–319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Papers/466.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-05-20.

 

hey now, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said he wasn't an engineer, I simply asked for qualifications of his statements. Obviously if he WAS an engineer, then what he said would have a bit more of an impact, yes? So I asked him to put that out there as well.

Sure, I put a little sass in there and took a *wild* guess at his qualifications (which turn out to be true.....not a civil engineer, nor a chemical specialist).

If someone can't handle a little sass on a public forum, he/she shouldn't be posting this kind of stuff.



Think of it this way....if we were sitting at a bar, and some dude randomly came up and said all this stuff, the first thing out of my mouth would be, "OK, and HOW do you know this and what proof do you have?" Sure...maybe I'll roll my eyes too, but I'm not going to sit there and say, "Really? Tell me MORE! hey, can I buy you drinks for the next 3 hours to tell your story? I'm sure it'll get better and more truthful with every sip you take!"

^^more sass



Again, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, I'm always open to hear new opinions and idea, but they need to have some merit...especially on topics of this magnitude

I have my opinions, but I'll keep them to myself because 1) I'm not in a position to prove/disprove my opinions, and 2) I find it pretty futile to post this kind of stuff over a public forum and actually think I'm going to change someone's mind. (and I find that people who think they CAN must have a pretty conceited opinion of themselves (just like any religious thread, talk about futile), but again, that's just my opinion and free speech and all, so he can keep on keepin' on with it, but I'm done reading this thread)


peace out!

 

Makes sense. My question regarding the magnesium was in regards to you stating the magnesium played a part in the fire, and then backing that up by providing a link that states, in general, that magnesium is used in aircraft manufacture, but nothing whatsoever specific to the actual model of aircraft. It's not about how much magnesium, it's about throwing out baseless comments without backing them up and then accusing others of the same. I cannot imagine that this needs to be explained further.

Yes. Did you read mine?

Oooooh now come the insults! These are pretty weak by the way, and I recommend proof-reading whilst trying to knock people for English comprehension.

Basically it sounds like you are saying your speculation is not speculation since you went to Embry-Riddle. Did you graduate? Not that it matters of course. Seems pretty much to me that making conjectural comments based on assumptions without actual specific data is quite akin to if not actually speculation. Regardless of how smart or qualified you say you are.

Commenting about what the temperatures may have been in the basement and what they could have done is absolutely insane since you do not have actual data from the incident. Or do you? All kinds of things "could have" happened!

 

Wow, either youre not reading any of the links that irrational x or I have posted or you suck at reading. All of that, plus links to the reports by actual civil engineers (three different studies) have all been posted, backing up our statements. What information have shared?

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=c...en&gl=us&pli=1

 

You misunderstand - I do not think I said anywhere that I "could not handle" your comments. I was eluding to any content you may have being lost in your delivery.

This holds true for most of these pointless and stupid arguments and many posts in this thread. If someone could express or explain themselves without the mockery, insults or name calling, they would have the chance to be taken seriously.

 

Hey, if it makes you feel better, think whatever you like. You officially have my permission as of right now.



By the way - thank you - seriously - for posting all of that information.

 

Eluding - verb - slip: the act of avoiding capture (especially by cunning)

Alluding - verb - To refer to something indirectly or by suggestion; to have
reference to a subject not specifically and plainly
mentioned;

 

jesus christ this thread exploded