Can a jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? An experiment.

[John Barrett]

<stj911 at rock.com> wrote in message 
news:1170488368.634755.138920 at m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 2, 10:32 pm, "John Barrett" <ke5c... at verizon.net> wrote:
>> <stj... at rock.com> wrote in message
>
>> >> > [snip]
>> >> > Run your "experiment" again but  add some pure oxygen such as was
>> >> > escaping from the on-board breathing oxygen tanks on the
>> >> > airplanes that were crashed into the WTC.
>>
>> > No need to do it. We have the pictures of live humans waving from the
>> > gaping holes in the towers where the planes crashed. We have the
>> > testimonies of the fire fighters that the fires were not that hot and
>> > minor. The fuel of the plane which is mainly in the wings were severed
>> > outside the netting and much of them burnt outside in the fireball
>> > that is visible in all the videos. Futhermore, the black soot that was
>> > visible to the naked eye is indicative of bloody cold flame. Also, the
>> > probability of the oxygen tanks oriented in such a way to inject
>> > oxygen onto the steel as in a oxygen cutting torch is extremely low.
>> > These cylinders have a 1000-3000psi of pressure which makes them into
>> > a rocket or an explosive under uncontrolled gas release. And they
>> > would not contaminate the molten metal with any sulfur. Either the
>> > atmosphere inside was oxidising or reducing. If it was oxidising, how
>> > did the sulfur in huge quantities contaminate the molten metal pools?
>> > The official lies to explain sulfur is from the plaster wall. But that
>> > requires a reducing atmosphere with finely divided and intimately
>> > mixed reactants in a calciner where they are continuously rotated and
>> > run for several hours. Yet the fires ran not even for an hour before
>> > the building collapsed.
>>
>> OK - given all that -- you are left with only one conclusion (or at least 
>> I
>> am) -- progressive structural failure, the loss of support where the 
>> plane
>> hit was sufficient to put excessive stress on the remaining structural
>> members, resulting in a catastrophic sequential failure
>
> I dont think you have seen any actual structural failures, esp
> progressive.
> That happens often in earthquake and they have stacked floors. There
> is
> famous picture of an earthquake on these websites and in the videos.
> Futhermore
> due to erratic stops and goes in the progressive failure, the
> structure falls on the side esp a big bldg like WTC1&2 should have
> fallen from the tipping torque to one side. That did not happen. only
> controlled demolition bldgs fall down straight.
>
>> -- it doesnt take
>> exotic chemical mixes to put excessive mechanical stress on a system... 
>> just
>> chop out enough supports.. it may take time for the remaining supports to
>> deform enough to reach the failure point.. but they will get there, as
>> demonstrated -- occams razor dude -- the least hypothesis is usually the
>> right one -- and I get enough conspiracy theory crap out of my dad --  
>> makes
>> a good movie -- but doesnt pan out in real life -- too many 
>> whistle-blowers
>> around !!
>
> Occams razor is applicable to nature's works. human works are not
> amenable to it. Besides, the official fairy tale is the conspiracy
> theory.
>
>> The city I live in is installing those red-light cameras to catch
>> light-runners -- my dad likes to claim that they manipulate the yellow 
>> time
>> to catch people in the intersection and increase revenue from traffic
>> tickets -- I told him to shut up until he got out there with a stop watch
>> and proved it -- and I say the same to you -- PROVE it -- then make some
>> noise -- conjecture and conspiracy theories without proof are a waste of
>> everyones time. -- how do you know the sulphur was in large quantities ??
>> did you do a chemical analysis ?? or can you produce one done by a 
>> reputable
>> metalurgy company ??
>
> These pillars are not machinable steel. the sulfur here was excessive.
> we are talking about intergranular corrosion, not that teeny amount
> used for imparting machinability and that is not nowadays needed. It
> only for cheap and rough chinese type crap and i am not sure even
> there if someone would ruin their steel mills by adding this kind of
> corrosive sulfur shit. come on dude ... dont mix categories.
>
>> Ohhh and by the way -- high sulphur steels are regularly used for 
>> machined
>> components -- was the amount of sulphur detected incosistent with what 
>> may
>> have been present due to the use of high sulphur steels ?? (where is that
>> metalurgy report again ??)
>
> yeah a damn fool would put sulfur in the bolts and load bearing
> elements such as the bolts of aircrafts and space shuttle.
>
> Besides how do you explain the completely pulverized building ??????
> if not for explosives.
>
>

have your read THIS ??