Melted cars at Ground Zero?

[nebula]

Look likes they were sitting on the bottom of the ocean for 20 years. What could have caused the bizarre damage to all these vehicles? Notice the extreme rust, missing tires, toasted sheetmetal, piles of dust, and....melted or missing car seats!? Many of these vehicles were located several blocks to half mile away from the falling buildings on 9/11. The last two photos show similar damage to vehicles at the Pentagon. any ideas?? your guess is as good as mine. This has to be one of the strangest things I have ever seen.


Witness account:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5a2ENaH8Y

[wildbilln864]

1. thanks nebula. nt

:hi:

[nebula]

2. hey there Bill.

Don't mention it!

[Twist_U_Up]

3. Eye witness:"Well in building 7 there were no fires what so ever"

and the raging fires buckled the building simultaneously into its own foot print at free fall speed.......

Put the pipe down official cult followers....that shit will fry your brain.

[hack89]

4. What of the eye wtiness that did see fires at WTC 7? nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. weren't these moved from the WTC after it 'fell'

weren't these damaged when the 'firey' towers 'fell'

[nebula]

6. From what I understand

the photos were taken before the vehicles were moved to the Fresh Kills landfill.

many weren't in the vicinity of the WTC when the towers fell, though obviously some were.



Link


A reported 1400 vehicles were damaged on 9/11. These vehicles had peculiar patterns of damage and some were as far away as FDR Drive (about 7 blocks from the WTC, along the East River). Vehicles had missing door handles for example, windows blown out, window frames deformed, melted engine blocks, steel-belted tires with only the steel belts left, and vehicle front ends destroyed with little or no effect on the back end of the vehicles. What could have caused such
extraordinary damage? Portions of cars burned while paper nearby did not.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. then it confirms my neighbors' observation on the day

that the basement was blown by mininukes

[sabbat hunter]

47. where is the radiation then

If there was any sort of nuclear explosion radiation detectors would have gone off.

[nebula]

7. I wouldn't describe the towers as 'firey'

the fires were burning only on few upper floors, and they had stopped burning by the time of the collapse.




for example, this is what you could call 'firey.'


(Madrid Spain)




this is NOT.

[hack89]

10. You are kidding, right?

that huge smoke plume represents thousands of pounds of particulate matter being lifted miles into the sky. That take a lot of energy - which in turn means big fires.

Each floor is "only" 40,000 square feet full of combustible material.

Here is a good paper on the physics behind the fires:

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

There's some good stuff here on how they modeled the smoke plume:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC_total__rept.pdf

[wildbilln864]

14. there were no "firey" towers...

there were towers with some floors on fire! Smokey towers? Yes. :hi:

[nebula]

21. Very smokey indeed!

greetings from Smokey the Bear.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. The last two pictures are of the Pentagon.

And when cars catch on fire, they tend to not look so great afterwards.

Unless, of course, someone is running around sprinkling thermite on cars here in Dallas.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=dallas+arson+cars&btnG=Search

[nebula]

11. Thermite?

experiment with thermite and a Volkswagen:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM


looks a lot like what happened to the toasted cars, doesn't it?

[nebula]

12. How did cars catch fire when they were blocks away?

[BadgerLaw2010]

13. Um, they were moved there after they burned out.

If you had eyes, you would notice that none of those are normal parking patterns or involve damage to the environment around the cars.

[nebula]

15. Link?

do you have proof of that or do you prefer to make guesses?

[nebula]

16. Uhhh, you seem to be imagining things

most of the vehicles in the photos are on the street shown in normal parking positions.

If they had been moved , you wouldn't see them parked on the street--they would be at the Fresh Kills landfill. But they haven't been moved yet. They are still on the street.

[piobair]

17. here you go

I've investigated over 700 car fires in the last 15 years and the pictures you posted are of typical fire damaged cars.
Here are some images assuming I've them correctly.

http://www.car-accidents.com/car-fire-crash-burn.html

[nebula]

19. The vehicles are obviously fire damaged.

The question is, what was the source of the fire damage? What caused the vehicles to ignite?

Was there a presence of thermite in the dust clouds?

hmm. Let's ponder that possibility for a minute. When the buildings went down, they created massive moving clouds of dust that engulfed the whole of lower Manhattan. If there was a thermite residue present in those dust clouds, it would be a possible source of ignition, once the still heated moving dust clouds came into contact with vehicles on the street. That would explain why the vehicles were ignited but the millions of pieces of paper were not, since thermite reacts with metal (and apparently rubber) but not paper.

I do believe we're getting warm now, aren't we? Yes, very warm indeed.

[piobair]

24. In your OP you don't seem to realize

that the pics you posted show fire damage.You express amazement at the "bizarre" damage. Nothing bizarre about it. Can we at least agree that the cars were burned? As far as thermite in the dust clouds..how about dragons. Makes as much sense and provides a degree of whimsy instead of full blown mental illness.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Dragons! :) n/t

[nebula]

26. Try harder

it's not that they are fire-damaged, the odd thing is how they got that way.

Try again.

[vincent_vega_lives]

115. Ahhh read this

Look likes they were sitting on the bottom of the ocean for 20 years. What could have caused the bizarre damage to all these vehicles? Notice the extreme rust, missing tires, toasted sheetmetal, piles of dust, and....melted or missing car seats!? Many of these vehicles were located several blocks to half mile away from the falling buildings on 9/11. The last two photos show similar damage to vehicles at the Pentagon. any ideas?? your guess is as good as mine. This has to be one of the strangest things I have ever seen.

Sounds like you are implying somthing OTHER than fire damage.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. Seventh picture down: Is that a fricking BEAM from the Towers on top of that car?

:eyes:

[nebula]

20. Sure, it very well could be

and how does a steal beam landing on a car roof cause the car to ignite into flames?

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Wow. Just wow. n/t

[nebula]

27. So you thik falling beams cause vehicles to spontaneously combust?

thats a good one.

[hack89]

36. Beams that were subjected to fires for an hour or so perhaps? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Fuel tanks not designed to accommodate impacts from heavy debris accelerated by gravity?

Perhaps?

[nebula]

60. The beam fell on the roof, not the gas tank.

[mhatrw]

82. Looks like it. And a very cleanly cut beam at that. n/t

[SidDithers]

23. Judy Woods is a loon...

and James Gourley gives evidence that the cars were moved to FDR drive as part of the clean-up efforts.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/scientific-critique-of-judy-woods-paper-star-wars-beam-weapons-by-james-gourley.pdf

Starting on page 11, under the heading "Toasted Cars"

Gourley appears to be a truther himself, and I had to take a shower after reading through that "journal", but he neatly collects information from a number of sources which indicate that tow trucks moved burned out cars from Ground Zero.

Sid

[nebula]

28. Explosions in the basement?

which were widely reported prior to collapse?

...could have cause that kind of damage to vehicles sitting in the sub-level parking areas. since they appear to be more than just damaged by fire and falling debris. these vehicles look as if bombs/explosives had been set off off in or around them. and what's with all the rust? I don't think fire alone can cause a car to just rust through like that, but a chemical such as thermite probably could.


edit: notice the door handles? why are they missing?

[LARED]

30. Plastic door handles typically melt in a fire

Of course being such an expert on combustible steel, I would think you knew that.

[nebula]

32. My car has chrome handles

but otherwise you're probably right.

[LARED]

33. Wow, chrome handles

must be very expensive! Are they solid chrome?

[nebula]

58. I don't think they're solid.

underneath the chrome is pure gold.

lol.

[ryan_cats]

46. Missing door handles

The missing door handles is what made me wonder. Then I went and looked at the cars in my driveway and the strongest material they're made out of is pot metal with most being in a plastic like shell while only the handle itself is metal or pop metal as on our Geo.

The rust doesn't bother me a bit. A friend owns a salvage yard and torching cars before they're re-possessed, seems to happen every day. It takes less than a week for burned cars to end up covered in rust in the burn area.

[LARED]

29. The thing that is most remarkable is that

the objects near the cars seen in the photos show nearly no effects of the fires. The person that is claiming the fires occurred where the cars are located really needs to address that phenomenon. Of course if the cars were moved to these locations after they were on fire there would be no reason to think surrounding objects would be affected by said fires.

[nebula]

31. The vehicles shown here

had not been moved yet. they are obviously still in their original location where they burned.








some of the vehicles may have been moved away from the debris pile at GZ,
but others clearly burned while parked on the street.

[LARED]

34. So some cars were moved and other were not. Then what is your point?

Also notice in the second image the soot on the wall from the fire.

[nebula]

35. Yeah, the soot on the wall

indicates the fire truck burned on the street. but the question is, how did it and other vehicles get that way? they appear to be damaged by fire, at least at first glance, but what set them off? perhaps explosives? why do they look like they have been sitting in a pool of molten metal, or slag, the ones reportedly burning at GZ for weeks?

take a look at the patrol car here. why does half of it look pristine, while the other half is burnt to a crisp? to me it looks as if it had been pulled out of the molten slag heap with a crane, so let's say when they found it the rear tail section was sticking out of the pool. so that would explain why only the front half is damaged.












to illustrate my point, pretend the water in this picture was a pool of molten slag.

[hack89]

38. And that molten slag just flowed like water

leaving no trace on the car? None of it cooled when the car was removed, leaving a residue on the car? Don't objects dipped in molten metal usually get coated with metal?

[LARED]

39. You have quite the imagination

pulled out of the molten slag heap with a crane

What molten slag heap? And a car caught in a pool of molten metal would not look like that.

[nebula]

41. What do you call this? Were you there?

FDNY, workers describe the debris pile: 'bright, bright orange color, red hot debris,
still burning like a foundry up to 1500 degrees, 8 weeks later.'

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM7HI4kjtvA



and you still have yet to explain what could have set off, or the source of the vehicle 'fires.'

[hack89]

44. They are not describing a pool of molten metal

they are describing what happens when a bunch of combustibles burn in a huge rubble pile for a very long time.

[nebula]

45. The firefighters called it 'molten steel' and 'like lava.'

[hack89]

48. It was molten aluminum

there was no way for steel to be molten - even thermite can't explain that.

[nebula]

50. But the buildings are made of steel

not aluminum.

edit: I believe molten aluminum appears silver in color.

but more importantly, there is relatively little aluminum content in the buildings to sustain the molten fires for weeks on end, though there is certainly plenty of steel to do so.

[hack89]

51. What do you think the towers were clad with?

There was thousands of tons of aluminum. And how does steel sustain molten fires? Steel does not burn - what was the heat source for weeks on end?

[nebula]

52. Steel does not burn?

wow, that is just a patently false statement.

[hack89]

54. Steel does not burn.

it melts when heat is applied to it but it can't ignite. If you really believe it does, you will need to provide a link.

[SidDithers]

56. Don't change the subject...

do you acknowledge that the buildings were clad in aluminum?

And that there were thousands of tons of aluminim in that cladding?

For a more accurate assessment, the city and the Port Authority turned to Leslie E. Robertson Associates, one of the structural engineering firms involved in building the trade center. The firm took out the original plans and quickly started adding up the ingredients of the World Trade Center floor by floor, said William Faschan, a partner at the firm in Manhattan.

The assessment came with a striking level of detail. It estimated that each of the twin towers contained 3,881 tons of steel reinforcing in the concrete floor slabs; 47,453 tons of vertical steel columns; 8,462 tons of aluminum and glass on the exterior walls; 2,531 tons of various ceiling materials; 4,218 tons of flooring; and 31,350 tons of partitions or walls.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/NYT_steel_salvage.htm

Sid

[nebula]

59. See 57.

I mean 57.

[Sweet Pea]

73. Reading this is just like watching a train wreck.

Seriously.

[nebula]

53. What do you think is burning a hole

right through this engine block?



Experiment with thermite and a car.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

[hack89]

55. Are you saying thermite burned for weeks on end?

I don't think you understand how thermite works. Or are you saying that the steel caught on fire from the thermite?

[nebula]

57. It has a melting point

steel doesn't 'catch fire.' dumb question.
but it can be melted into a molten pool of iron if temperatures are hot enough.

steel is a composite metal made mostly of iron, carbon, and various alloys.
the melting point of steel is about 1500°C (2750°F). this incidentally happens to be
the very same temperatures measured by the firefighters at Ground Zero.
Those are the same temps stated in the video!! That is proof right there.

If the molten pool was aluminum, the temps wouldn't be nearly as high
because aluminum has a MUCH lower melting point.

[hack89]

61. But Aluminum will also be molten at 1500 c

so we don't know if it was steel or aluminum. How would fire fighters recognize molten steel - I thought the WTC was a unique event? Are you saying that molten steel is common at fires and that is how the fire fighters gained the experience to recognize one molten metal over another?


What was creating those temperatures? I say it was all those tons of combustibles that the towers contained. After all, all the termite was consumed in seconds - there is no such thing as a slow thermite reaction.

[nebula]

65. Ahh, but we do know

the temperature tells us that. the temperature is the key to knowing if it was steal and/or aluminum. burning jet fuel can melt down aluminum, but it cannot melt down steel. so if jet fuel was the only catalyst involved, then the recorded temperatures could NEVER exceed 815°C, which is the maximum temperature of burning jet fuel. If the temperatures go beyond that maximum, then you know for sure that something else was involved, such as thermite!

[SidDithers]

69. The temperature doesn't tell you anything...

about whether the material is steel or aluminum. The only way to determine the composition of the material is to test it to see what it is.

If I had a block of aluminum, that I melted, and then increased the temperature to 1500c, is the liquid still aluminum? Or has it magically transformed into steel?

Sid

[SidDithers]

62. See 56, you didn't answer the question...

do you acknowledge that the building cladding was made up of thousands of tons of aluminum?

Sid

[nebula]

63. Yes, but that is irrelevant

the recorded temperature is what matters.

[SidDithers]

64. The boiling point of aluminum is 2467C...

so it most certainly could be aluminum at those recorded temps.

Sid

[nebula]

66. Boiling point?

I don't know what you mean by the boiling point, but the melting point (of aluminum) is 660°C.

...or less than half that of steel.

[SidDithers]

68. You've acknowledged the presence...

of thousands of tons of aluminum. Are you now saying that aluminum can't be 1500C?

Sid

[nebula]

70. Put it this way

1) Burning jet fuel WILL melt aluminum, but will NOT melt steel. So if you were to place a solid chunk of aluminum in a pool of molten steel, the solid aluminum would naturally melt down.

2) BUT, if you were to place a solid chunk of steel into a pool of molten aluminum, it will NOT melt.

3) An extreme-temperature catalyst, such as thermite, would be required to reach 1500°C.

4) Put it this way:

If you were a firefighter at GZ coming across a molten pool for the first time, you examine the temperature of the pool and find that it exceeds 815°C (the max burning point of jet fuel), then that would indicate for certain the presence of something in the pool that is much MORE hotter-burning than aluminum and jet fuel alone!

[hack89]

71. But thermite won't keep temperatures that hot for weeks

where did the sustained heat come from that kept the rubble pile hot for weeks? Anything the thermite melted would start cooling seconds after the thermite reaction ended. And the thermite reactions would have stopped before the towers had even finished collapsing.

furthermore, wouldn't the thermite simply cut a narrow strip in each support column? Each cut would only generate a small amount of molten slag - the remainder of the beam would be intact. Remember the smoking gun pictures of the columns withe the 45 degree angle cuts? So how could thermite melt vast amounts of steel? It is impossible.

[nebula]

75. Uh, no. Thermite is a catalyst, not a fuel source

the millions of tons of steel is the fuel source, if you have enough steel you can keep the rubble pile hot and burning for weeks, even months.

Analogy: with enough wood, you can keep a campfire going for days. but you only need to use the match (the catalyst) once to start the fire.

[hack89]

84. Steel is not a fuel source - it is not like wood

you really think that steel burns like wood? Steel does not release energy - it takes energy to make change form.

[nebula]

88. Steel does not burn like wood

because it requires much greater energy for it to burn. But it still burns.
Obviously, it is an analogy. An analogy is not the same as a definition.


2) If don't think the molten pool at GZ contained steel, then what was it?

What was burning for 8 weeks at 1500°C at ground zero?

What else but steel could sustain that kind of temperature for that period of time??

[SidDithers]

89. Aluminum..

with a huge heat source keeping it hot, obviously.

Sid

[nebula]

90. Try again

Aluminum can't sustain those temperatures. Only steel can.

[hack89]

92. What do you mean by "sustain those temperatures"

you certainly can heat aluminum to those temperatures. What do you think happens to it when heated that hot?

[nebula]

93. With what?

jet fuel burns at max temp. 815°C.

melting point of aluminum is 660°C.

So how the heck do you get 1500°C temperatures with jet fuel or aluminum?
It's impossible.

So what could possibly create that kind of heat?
Answer: thermite, molten steel.

[AZCat]

94. Oh, for fuck's sake.

You are absolutely ignorant of both heat transfer and materials. You think there is a maximum temperature for fires, and that steel actually burns. This is ridiculous! Only on the internet would anyone think to post these thoughts as if they had merit. Temperatures of fires are determined by heat flux, which is partially dependent (but only partially) on fuel type. Burning, of course, is an exothermic reaction. The rusting of iron (i.e. as in steel) is exothermic, but this is not what you are describing. Instead, you seem to think that the phase change from solid to liquid of steel somehow is exothermic. This is wrong.

[SidDithers]

96. It's mind boggling, isn't it....nt

Sid

[piobair]

98. This is 7th grade genl. science.

I'm amazed at how little basic science knowledge some of these posters display. Oh well, at least they have plenty of self esteem.

[SidDithers]

100. Plenty of self esteem...

:rofl:

Sid

[nebula]

105. 7th grade science

you can't achieve temperatures that melt steel, without melting steel.

unless you are David Copperfield.

[nebula]

106. Another 7th grade science lesson for you

A cannot fall as fast as B, if at all.

[AZCat]

103. Quite.

Coupled with the arrogance it's almost humorous (but not quite).

[hack89]

95. How did the ancient Romans smelt iron?

They didn't have thermite.

Stop talking about the jet fuel - there was no jet fuel in the rubble pile. As I have shown you several time, the materials in a typical office building can burn at temperatures over 1100 C.

[nebula]

104. You claim there is no steel in the molten pool, only aluminum

but how do you achieve 1500 C temperatures, the melting point of steel,
without melting any steel?

David Copperfield?

[hack89]

122. There is no mention of 1500 C

they said "1500 degrees" with no units. Where did you get the idea that they were talking Celsius? They were Americans - they don't speak "Celsius" - they speak "Fahrenheit".

[nebula]

107. So you're claiming that

1500 C temperature can be achieved by an ordinary building fire?

so since 1500 C is the melting point of steel, then you are claiming that every office building
in history that has ever caught fire has caused all the steel in the building to melt!

seriously, is that what you're saying??

:rofl:

[hack89]

123. No - we are talking apples and oranges here

we are discussing a hot fire burning in a rubble pile for weeks on end.

When you understand the difference between heat and temperature, you will understand why steel buildings don't melt in fires. They do, however, weaken. That is why fire codes require fire proofing.

[piobair]

109. If an 8 ft long sofa in an 8x10 room

catches fire and burns at 500F. What temperature would you expect to measure in that room after say 10 minutes?

[nebula]

111. Not enough to melt steel

No steel-frame building in history has ever collapsed due to fire.

Fire CANNOT melt or even WEAKEN steel to the point of collapse.

Otherwise this skyscraper in Madrid Spain would not be standing
after burning for 18 hours straight.






After burning for 18 hours straight, not ONE single floor has collapsed.

[piobair]

112. You are avoiding the question.

Please demonstrate at least a rudimentary understanding of fire science since you spend so much time expounding on it. Steel melting is irrelevant to the collapse since all the steel had to do was lose strength and deform due to expansion. No melting necessary. Of course you already know this but continue to ignore real science in favor of "thermite Dust".

[nebula]

114. Is that your idea of humor?

Name one office building before 9/11, that has ever collapsed due to 'steel weakening.'

JUST ONE.

[AZCat]

117. Equitable Life Insurance Building. n/t

[nebula]

119. The Equitable Life Building was built in the 1800s

let's try to keep the discussion to the modern world.

:rofl:

[AZCat]

120. Your criteria said nothing about era.

Stop moving the fucking goalposts.

[hack89]

130. The steel portions of the Madrid building. nt

[hack89]

113. Madrid was primarily a concrete builidng

The concrete portion remained standing - the steel portion did collapse.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

[nebula]

118. I don't care if its made of steel or concrete,

The fact remains,

NO FIRE in history, no matter how severe, has ever caused the collapse of a modern high-rise.


The Madrid tower was made of steel-reinforced concrete, btw.
It would not be standing after the fire if the steel portion had failed, but it was still standing.

[hack89]

121. And you don't seem to care about the planes that crashed into the WTC

The WTC were the first time in history that fully loaded 767s have crashed into modern high rises.

Show me a high rise that suffered severe structural damages as well as fires and maybe then you will have something.

You completely misunderstood what I said about Madrid - there were portions of the building that were steel frame construction like the WTC. Those portions collapsed due to fire. The reinforced concrete sections remained standing.

[nebula]

124. Building 7 was hit by a plane?

That's news to me.

[hack89]

125. It was smashed by falling debris

as witnessed by FDNY. It had a 20 story gouge in it - sounds like severe structural damage to me.

[nebula]

126. 20-story gouge?

Sounds like a tall tale to me LOL.

[hack89]

128. You are right

All firefighters are liars - whether a 20 foot gouge or molten steel, we can't trust what they say.

[nebula]

127. If that's the case

then why didn't the 40-story Deutsche Bank building collapse?

The Deutsche Bank building was located directly underneath (across the street)
the Twin Towers, while Building 7 was located a block away.

And yet it the former didn't fall.

[hack89]

129. Lets think

different design and construction.

different degrees of damage.

Fewer fires.

[nebula]

131. Wrong again

The fire and physical damage to the Deutsche bank building was much more extensive than Building 7. Not surprising since it was located directly underneath the twin towers while Building 7 was located a block away. So why did it fail to collapse?



Deutsche Bank, massive 24-story gash, still standing:

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1083095462033718048tMQRah

Deutsche Bank damage

The 40-story building was destroyed by the collapse of the 2 World Trade Center (South Tower) in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The collapse of 2 World Trade Center tore a 24-story gash into the facade and destroyed the entire interior of the building. Steel and concrete was sticking out of the building for months afterwards, this was eventually cleaned up but the 42 storey ruin was chosen to be taken down. After the 9/11 attacks, netting that had the appearance of a black burial shroud was placed around the remains of the building. The bank maintained that the building could not be restored to habitable condition, while its insurers sought to treat the incident as recoverable damage rather than a total loss. Work on the building was deferred for over two years during which the condition of the building deteriorated.

[hack89]

132. That's one point out of three

care to address design and fires? Deutsche Bank didn't burn.

[nebula]

133. Once again, FIRE had nothing to do with collapse of Building 7

You keep repeating that BULL SHIT like a broken record.

For one, the fires were extremely localized, to no more than one or two floors of Building 7.
To claim that fire in any way shape or form contributed to the collapse of Building 7 is pure BULLSHIT.


Once gain,


NO MODERN HIGH-RISE IN HISTORY HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE.

[nebula]

134. In case you didn't get that

NO MODERN HIGH-RISE IN HISTORY HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE.

[AZCat]

135. You say that like it means something in this context.

We are dealing with extraordinary conditions. It is not usual for aircraft to be flown into buildings.

[nebula]

137. And AZCat keeps posting

as if he had something intelligent to say. :eyes:

[AZCat]

138. Says the same person...

who 1) can't figure out the strawman argument in a simple claim
and 2) can't seem to figure out that steel does not in fact burn

Yeah, you're pretty much irrelevant, nebula. Amusing, but irrelevant.

[Laurier]

140. No modern high-rise in history

had ever, prior to September 11, 2001, had large commercial jets deliberately flown into them at high speed.

Your point?


As an aside, I have to admit to chuckling a little every time I read this same old ridiculous canard that "no modern high-rise in history has ever collapsed due to fire" because in the early days of the false "truth" movement, they used to say, "no building has ever collapsed due to fire" and when that was proven wrong, they changed their mantra to, "no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire" and when that was proven wrong, they changed their mantra to, "no steel framed high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire", and when that was proven wrong, they changed their mantra to, "no modern high-rise has ever completely collapsed due solely to fire", etc. Keep on moving those goal posts long enough and one day... they just might put one between the uprights (though, they'll still be wrong.)


Back on topic, there are very good reasons why fire codes require that steel portions of buildings have fire-proofing material applied to them. Can you think of what those reasons might be?

[hack89]

136. There were mutliple fires that burned for hours

unless the firefighters were lying. Are FDNY liers?

[vincent_vega_lives]

116. "Fire CANNOT melt or even WEAKEN steel"

Do you know how steel is made?

[nebula]

139. That's a good one

Hah!

:hi:

[nebula]

141. Still waiting for someone to name

a modern high-rise collapse due to fire/weakened structural steel, before OR after 9/11.

oh, and Building 7 was never hit by a plane.

[AZCat]

142. I thought I saw some goalposts around here somewhere.

Oh, there they are! Why did you move them?

[hack89]

143. First time a 767 has ever hit a building

why is it hard to accept that everything has to happen for the first time once?

[nebula]

144. Still no answer

even after 7 years.

[hack89]

145. So you can show me where a building was hit by a 767?

or do you simply consider that fact an annoyance and something to be ignored?

The WTC was unique - accept that simple fact.

[nebula]

146. Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane

and fire doesn't weaken structural steel to the point of collapse.


Accept that fact.

[SDuderstadt]

147. Why does structural steel....

need fireproofing?

[nebula]

148. Was the WTC steel fireproofed?

Yes! It was.


...further discrediting the 'weakened by fire to the point of collapse' nonsense.

[piobair]

149. Why did it have to be?

Since {according to you} fire can't weaken steel. You do realize however that the fireproofing was knocked off by the force of the planes impact.

[nebula]

150. No, it did not.

Do you think an airplane that struck a couple of the upper floors is enough to dislodge all the fireproofing contained in a 110 story building?

That's as ridiculous as saying you could knock ALL the paint off of a car by firing a single bullet(or even many) at it. LMAO.

[piobair]

154. You can't possibly be that dense on purpose.

The impact only had to dislodge the fp in the area of impact where the fires were. You still haven't answered the question.Why was fireproofing needed if fire would'nt affect the steel?

[SDuderstadt]

156. No one said it knocked all the fireproofing off

Your arguments are getting sillier, Nebula. Perhaps you could tell us why ALL the fireproofing on floors other than where the collapse initiated would have to be dislodged in order for the building to collapse. Oh, I forgot,,,,you're not an engineer (as shown by your silly posts)

[nebula]

158. Reading comprehension is not one of your strengths is it?

I would suggest Hooked on Phonics.


Post 149:

"You do realize however that the fireproofing was knocked off by the force of the planes impact."

--Piobair

[nebula]

151. Secondly

The SMOLDERING fires of the Twin Towers is, by definition, much weaker than a BLAZING one. It wasn't NEARLY as intense enough, or lasted long enough, to even begin to weaken structural steel. A smoldering fire is one that is weak, under control, and has for the most part burned itself out.



here is a WEAK smoldering fire that lasted under an hour.
this fire has burned itself out within minutes. notice it has failed to spread beyond the initial impact point.







here is a very INTENSE, out of control, BLAZING INFERNO, that burned and blazed all DAY and NIGHT for 18 hours straight. the fire here has intensified with each passing hour, so much so that it eventually spread throughout and engulfing every floor of the building.





do you understand the difference?

[piobair]

153. smoldering fires

is your definition. A single floor of the WTC {according to the FDNY} would have been considered an all hands fire. For you to try and minimize the severity of the fire is wrong on so many levels. Are you suggesting that all those people who jumped to their deaths did so because they were uncomfortable?
You have proven yourself to possess such a profound lack of knowledge on so many varied topics that one wonders how you get through the day. You have not been right on any topic I've ever seen you post and you seem to just spout things such as steel is its own fuel without realizing how ludicrous it is. Even your fellow travelers won't back up your claims. Why don't you learn a few basic facts about fire before embarrasing yourself? I'm sure there is a local fire dept. in your area that would be happy to give you some training.

[nebula]

160. You ought to get your eyes checked out

You obviously have a great deal of difficulty telling the difference between a smoky, smoldering fire and a raging inferno. You really should have them examined before you go blind.

:rofl:

[hack89]

161. What about that massive smoke plume?

it takes a hell of a lot of energy to lift tons of particulate matter miles into the air.

[SDuderstadt]

155. No, Nebula....

as you well know, the working hypothesis is that the airplanes knocked the fireproofing off. That's far more credible than your goofy theories.

[nebula]

159. You two ought to join the circus

It would make for a truly entertaining act.

:rofl:

[hack89]

152. Lets settle the WTC 1 and 2 first, shall we?

and of course fire does. Unless you really believe that fires don't get to 600 C. Remember the steel portions of the Madrid tower? What made them collapse?

[SidDithers]

97. You really have no clue, do you?...

First, I'm not prepared to concede that there even was molten metal. But lets assume for argument that there was.

The reason that whatever metal stayed molten was that heat was continually being added to it.

Pretend that the metal is water, outside on a really cold day. At -40C, the water is ice (solid). Now, take that block of ice and put it in a pot on a fire. Heat the ice up to 0C and it becomes water (the melting point). But you can continue to heat it past the melting point, to 50C, 70C even up to 100C, at which point it will start to boil.

Now put the fire out. Eventually, the water will cool (you're outside and it's -40C, remember), and when the water cools enough, it will refreeze.

Aluminum would behave the same way. At temps up to 660C (or whatever it is, I'm doing this from memory), the aluminum is a solid. Keep adding heat and the aluminum melts, becoming molten. Keep heating it, and the molten aluminum gets hotter, until an equilibrium is reached, where the amount of heat added and the heat lost through cooling are equal.

That's why the temperature alone tells you abso-fucking-lutely nothing about the alleged "molten metal".

Sid

[nebula]

108. Again. You are not making any logical sense

You say you doubt the existence of molten metal at GZ.

But temps of 1500°C were recorded by firefighters and GZ workers, as seen here.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM7HI4kjtvA

So the question is, how the hell is it possible to achieve 1500°C in a building fire
without producing any molten steel, if 1500°C is the melting point of steel??

[hack89]

91. It does not burn

it is not consumed - it simply changes form. Once is cools it still has the same weight.

The fires did not burn for 8 weeks at 1500 c. What was burning? Think about it - the towers were packed with hundreds of tons of consumable material. What do you think was burning before the towers collapsed? Building fires such as those easily reach temps of 1100 c or more.

The fires, which began at over 1,000 °C, gradually cooled, at least on the surface, during September and October 2001. USGS's AVIRIS also measured temperatures when it flew over ground zero on Sept. 16 and 23. On Sept. 16, it picked up more than three dozen hot spots of varying size and temperature, roughly between 500 and 700 °C. By Sept. 23, only two or three of the hot spots remained, and those were sharply reduced in intensity, Clark said.

However, Clark doesn't know how deep into the pile AVIRIS could see. The infrared data certainly revealed surface temperatures, yet the smoldering piles below the surface may have remained at much higher temperatures. "In mid-October, in the evening," said Thomas A. Cahill, a retired professor of physics and atmospheric science at the University of California, Davis, "when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

Fore details on the fires

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

[piobair]

110. You could expose steel to the heat of a 1000 suns and it would still not burn.

Once you remove the heat source it will begin to cool.
STEEL DOES NOT COMBUST.

[AZCat]

87. Your point #2 is incorrect.

You need to look up Al-Fe phase diagrams. Or, alternatively, ask jberryhill. Some of his graduate work was in this area.

[piobair]

72. you once argued for dozens of posts

that steel actually does catch fire. That was in your top ten of ridiculous posts. You said that once the steel caught fire it would just keep burning.
I think with this op your record is intact. 100% wrong 100% of the time.

[SidDithers]

74. Steel fire logs might be the funniest thing ever posted here...

and that's really saying something. :rofl:

Sid

Edit: for clarification

[nebula]

77. That is an analogy,

if you were smart, you could see that.

where does it say in my post that steel is 'combustible??'

once gain, you are desperately grasping for straws.

[piobair]

79. analogy my ass

Read your post. You said all you have to do is keep adding steel beams to fuel the fire. If I cared enough I'd go back and count all the posts in that thread where you make this claim but it is frankly not worth it. Proving you wrong is like kicking a puppy..no challenge to it.

[nebula]

80. Are you a clown by profession, piobair?

or is it just a hobby?

[piobair]

81. I drive the short bus.

See you tomorrow!

[nebula]

76. Dozens of posts?

what do you do really do for a living, piobair?
have you considered professional comedy?

:rofl:

[piobair]

40. not unusual

This car is a classic example of a fire that started in the engine compartment and spread to the interior. Think about what a police car has that your car doesn't have. Thats right, a perp cage. This barrier kept the fire from spreading to the rear passenger area. Note the burn line.
Now about your video of the thermite on the car. If thermite dust reacts with metal to cause fire, why did these gus have to light a fuse? Why didn't they just throw some thermite at the car? None of the pics you posted show anything other than typical fire damage to vehicles.

[nebula]

42. So what set off the engine fires?

explosives going off in the sub-level parking areas?

what about that fire truck and other vehicles sitting on the street? how did they catch fire?


in a cooled state the thermite doesn't react, but like I mentioned before, the dust cloud was in a heated state for several minutes after the collapse, due to the friction/heat of being pulverized into dust. that might be a possible source of heat for the reaction to take place absent a lighter and a fuse.

[hack89]

43. Explosives create high pressure waves

that shatter or deform metal. Why are the cars intact? High explosives do not create fire balls - that is pure Hollywood.

[nebula]

78. How is this 'intact?'

when was the last time you had your eyes checked?

[hack89]

85. That car was crushed by a falling object

look at that nice v shape in the trunk lid.

[nebula]

49. You know what? You are absolutely right.

'Classic example of engine fire that spread to the interior.'



Let's remember that prior to collapse, hundreds of patrol cars and fire trucks were fresh on the scene, with their engines hot and running. meaning, the hood of the vehicles are hot to the touch. so what happens when the thermite dust clouds comes into contact with all of these heated car hoods?

KABOOM!

you have your engine fire.

[Sweet Pea]

102. Thermite Dust Clouds?

Next up on Maury! Height-challenged transgendered cab drivers in brooklyn and the women/men who love them!

Thermite dust clouds? Where the hell did THAT come from!

[BeachBaby]

67. Hi, nebula....

:hi:

While I almost always agree with everything you post, I have to disagree here, unless I'm misunderstanding you. If that's the case, please correct me.

These vehicles were obviously crushed with something, as many of them are horribly disfigured, crushed, totaled. Granted, I only have spoken with a couple of people who were there that day, but there was one constant in their recollections: that there were small fires all over the place: in the streets, on sidewalks, on rooftops, and on vehicles. They all claimed that fiery pieces of debris, scattered all over, was the cause.

What I'm seeing here from the pictures, is simply vehicles being the victims of fiery debris.

[mhatrw]

83. I'm not sure that is true, but it definitely COULD be true.

You have to remember that most of these are NY vehicles and therefore some could have been very rusty under their paint before the fires.

These pictures, while visually interesting, don't prove anything to me except that confirmation bias is alive and well on both sides of the fence.

[Sweet Pea]

101. After all...

it's YOUR duty as a US citizen to disagree!

[CB_Brooklyn]

86. Directed Energy Weapons

See here for all the real info. Thermite can't do this. And where is that evidence for thermite anyway? I haven't seen it.


http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html

[piobair]

99. Go on, pull the other one! n/t

[HamdenRice]

157. A coupla observations of anomalies from an eyewitness NYer perspective

As I mentioned a couple of times on this board, I was in lower Manhattan the morning of the attacks. Fortunately, I was not in the immediate vicinity, although the plane did fly low over my builing and I heard the first plane crash into the North Tower. I also am very familiar with lower Manhattan in general.

Pictures 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 were taken quite far from ground zero. They were taken across lower Manhattan -- just as far downtown as the towers, but on the East Side. The towers were on the West Side just a few blocks from the Hudson River. These cars are under the FDR Drive (the elevated structure over them) and that's the East River behind them. The crushed police car had to have been moved to that location, because the FDR Drive over it would have prevented anything from falling on it and crushing it at that location. This area seems to be around the Fulton Fish Market and Brooklyn Bridge.

The crushed cars line up in picture 4 also seem to have been moved to that location. I'm pretty sure that that ramp is a ramp to the Brooklyn Bridge, very close to where the other pictures were taken. (I assume its the Brooklyn Bridge, because as the oldest bridge, it's ramps are clad in huge stone blocks). It's highly unlikely that that was an area where cars could park, so again, it seems they were moved there.

The biggest oddity of picture 4 is the amount of ash in the street. After the towers collapsed, I had to walk home to Brooklyn over the Manhattan Bridge, ie the East Side, just a few blocks north of the Brooklyn Bridge area where these pictures were taken. There was little ash and dust that had fallen on the East Side, when I crossed to Brooklyn, so I'm surprised that there was this much accumulation just a few blocks from where I crossed over.

Picture 5 is I believe on the West Side, (could be wrong here) and if so, that picture is very, very close to ground zero, unlike the others, and the cars seemed to have been damaged where they appear in the pic.

My guess is that the emergency services agencies towed many burned vehicles to the East Side to clear the streets and traffic lanes on the West Side in order to facilitate their work.

None of this is to discount, however, the very strange accounts of burning and exploding cars in lower Manhattan.