Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

[thebanned1]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

I'm guessing you didn't bother reading this before you posted it

nope didn't read

But some experts remain unconvinced by the study's conclusions.

[King Coe]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

"Everything I see points to the fact that there may not have been enough insulation," he told New Scientist, adding that the fuel loads used in the report's calculations may have been too low.

what fuel loads?

[thebanned1]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

what fuel loads?

i,m not sure but wouldn't the insulation need to be a certain thickness for a certain amount of fire ? e.g. a gallon of fuel = insulation 2 inch thick ?

[audrey_w]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

How about the next time a steel framed building is due for demolition, as an experiment, fill it with aviation fuel and set it alight.
Then see if the steel structure collapses. Would be interesting.

[thebanned1]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

How about the next time a steel framed building is due for demolition, as an experiment, fill it with aviation fuel and set it alight.
Then see if the steel structure collapses. Would be interesting.

i think the twin towers were a unique design which makes that idea pretty difficult plus they would need to fly planes into it so see what damage to the structure that made

[King Coe]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

i think the twin towers were a unique design which makes that idea pretty difficult plus they would need to fly planes into it so see what damage to the structure that made

No jet fuel in Building 7 and had there been it would have burnt up in the explosion.

[audrey_w]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

Yeah, i'm not saying this would conclusively prove either way what happened that day to those 3 particular buildings. But, as an experiment, it could be used to see what kind of temperatures are created in the steel and the stress on the structure could be measured too.
For the sake of this experiment it may be worth remembering that building 7 wasn't hit by a plane and no aviation fuel was involved in it's fires

[Illuminate]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

Within a steel-frame compartment (3 m by 7 m by 4 m) lined with calcium silicate board were placed four steel components: two trusses, one thin-walled column, and a rod. The components either were uninsulated or had fibrous sprayed fire-resistive material (SFRM) applied; two thicknesses were tested. The 2 MW and 3 MW fires were generated using liquid hydrocarbon fuels introduced by a two-nozzle spray burner onto a 1 m by 2 m pan. The fuels were a commercial blend of heptane isomers and a mixture of the heptane blend with toluene. Six experiments were conducted.Measurements were made of a large number of parameters, including the heat release rate; the radiative and total heat flux at various targets in the compartment, including locations near the floor and the ceiling;the temperatures of insulated and uninsulated steel components; the concentrations of soot, oxygen,carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide; and the vertical profiles of gas-phase temperature. A video record was made from several orientations. Nearly 350 ch annels of data were acquired. Following the establishment of baseline signals from all of the measurement devices, the burner was ignited and burned at a steady rate. The test continued until the surface temperature of any one of several steel components present in the compartment reached approximately 600

In conclusion,

For each test, a prediction of the thermal environment in the compartment was determined using the NIST FDS fire model. A prediction of the rise of the steel temperature for the simulated thermal environment was made using the NIST FSI. A comparison of the FDS predictions and the experimental results showed that the predictions were within experimental and model uncertainty. The steel temperatures predicted by the FSI and the ANSYS finite-element models compared favorably with the measurements within experimental uncertainty and model sensitivity.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101034

[audrey_w]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

. The 2 MW and 3 MW fires were generated using liquid hydrocarbon fuels introduced by a two-nozzle spray burner onto a 1 m by 2 m pan. The fuels were a commercial blend of heptane isomers and a mixture of the heptane blend with toluene.

Hardly your standard office fire, as was the case in building 7

[Illuminate]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

Bit of a obscure situation, as a standard office fire would not be started by a jet engine that just crashed into your building.

[thebanned1]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

to be perfectly honest i can't get my head around building 7 either but if it was a false flag operation as a lot of you are suggesting why go perfecting all the rest of the plan but then pull building 7 down in a controlled demolition knowing that no plane hit it...it just doesn't make sense that they should pulverize building 7 on its own certainly knowing it would raise eyebrows which it certainly has, wouldn't exactly be left out by a professionally set up operation.... so it doesn't make sense to me this was a false flag op

[King Coe]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

Bit of a obscure situation, as a standard office fire would not be started by a jet engine that just crashed into your building.

No plane hit building 7

[thebanned1]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

the conspiracy theorists saying building 7 proves it is like a christian saying jesus will come back because the bible says so

[thebanned1]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

i don't know about you but when the plane hits i see a lot of hot material flying through the air, i would say that if a piece of this smashed through an office window its most probably hot enough to start a fire

[King Coe]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

to be perfectly honest i can't get my head around building 7 either but if it was a false flag operation as a lot of you are suggesting why go perfecting all the rest of the plan but then pull building 7 down in a controlled demolition knowing that no plane hit it...it just doesn't make sense that they should pulverize building 7 on its own certainly knowing it would raise eyebrows which it certainly has, wouldn't exactly be left out by a professionally set up operation.... so it doesn't make sense to me this was a false flag op

Where was the plane that was brought down in Pennsylvania going?