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

[stj911 at rock.com]

On Feb 3, 1:08 am, "John Barrett" <ke5c... at verizon.net> wrote:
> <stj... 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.
>
> lets try that again :)
>
> http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Yeah, I know eager very well. He runs the welding lab at MIT.

> A very concise and MUCH more believable explanation of the structural
> failure modes involved WITH numbers that MAKE SENSE !! (and interestingly
> enough, a progressive failure as I surmised earlier.. one thing (one one
> thing) leads to another !!)

Pal, I am sorry to say that your knowledge is extremely obsolete. He
was refuted
centuries ago. Even NIST disowned his pancake theory subsequently.

> and a VERY good explanation of why it fell straight down instead of to the
> side !!
>
> It even explains the speed of collapse, which given the masses involved
> (which they detail), will allow you to compute the energy of impact that so
> complexly pulverized the structure
>
> (remember what I said about RESEARCH -- try it some time !! It didn't take
> me and hour to find that one !! Google "world trade center structure")

that exactly explains why your finding was such an obsolete one.

> And so I wield Occam's Razor -- the simplest explanation that makes sense !!

The newsgroups such as this are now being used mainly for
announcements of new findings, but not tutorials. I have already given
link to www.st911.org and
there you will get to all the down-pyramid sites where all your
obsolete objections have been answered ad nauseum with detailed papers
and research. Eager was the first one to refuted. He has'nt dared to
open his mouth since then for fear or ruining the reputation of MIT
that such unsubstantiated research could come out of there.

Do not forget, 911 is a crime. Science there is only a part of it.
There are other pieces of evidence such as the presence of FEMA just
the day BEFORE the event. The power shutdowns to disable the security
cameras. The removal of bomb sniffing dogs. Just weeks prior to 911.
Bush family incharge of security.

Dont bother to post unless you have done enough research by first
reading through the sites to the CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH.

Ever watched the following videos:

Loose change
Terror storm

start from there and then go to the current state of research.

Explain the presence of potassium in the molten steel and also
manganese.
They came from the potassium permanganate oxidiser of thermate.

And then the Bush video: There's always time for politics ... Laughing
out Loud.
I already posted the short video links for you.