Creative Speculation

gyroscope

(1,443 posts)

32. Hard to believe

Thu Jun 15, 2017, 04:53 PM

Jun 2017

steel can lose its strength to the point of complete failure after burning for a couple of hours.

if that were the case then all of our steel pots and pans would be completely useless for cooking.

The Twin Towers were a giant heatsink. The heat would be absorbed and dissipated by all 110 floors of steel framing before it could do much damage to any part of it. It doesn't just simply get hotter and hotter at one point or one floor of the building, because the heat is dissipated throughout the massive structure. Which makes it impossible for fire to weaken any of the steel to the point of catastrophic failure.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

74 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Explosions Before The Collapse of WTC 7 [View all] wildbilln864 Sep 2016 OP

What do structural beams sound like - from outside a building - when they fail? jonno99 Sep 2016 #1

hard to say as... wildbilln864 Sep 2016 #2

I never say never - especially if an external force exceeds the design specs...nt jonno99 Sep 2016 #3

the WTC structures were built with a redundancy factor of 5 times wildbilln864 Sep 2016 #4

There are many, many, sites that explain why the towers fell - without the jonno99 Sep 2016 #5

A 747 at 400 mph? Right. Nt hack89 Sep 2016 #7

Correct nationalize the fed Sep 2016 #8

Another nationalize the fed Sep 2016 #10

The buildings sustained the impacts. AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #25

"redundancy factor of 5 times" whitefordmd Oct 2016 #12

Seriously? Buildings with steel beams fail too often in India and Bangaladesh. marble falls Sep 2016 #6

NIST WTC 7 FAQ nationalize the fed Sep 2016 #9

"No fire codes changed." You really believe that? hack89 Sep 2016 #11

Exactly Separation Jan 2017 #13

Doesn't fit the narrative so it won't be responded to. AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #22

seems questionable captain queeg Jan 2017 #14

Lol, is that 747 statement in there? jberryhill Feb 2017 #15

707 AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #24

Yep..the B-25 crash into the Empire State Building in 1945 was their design motivation. sdfernando Jun 2017 #27

FYI - It also wasn't part of the design marylandblue Jun 2017 #28

Thanks, I did not know that. /nt sdfernando Jun 2017 #40

Of course it fell uniform MosheFeingold Feb 2017 #16

I see your point captain queeg Mar 2017 #17

It did. BOTH towers fell, slighly biased in the direction from which they were hit. AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #23

redundancy factor captain queeg Mar 2017 #18

What is redundancy factor?how is it defined in stucture? Ptah Mar 2017 #19

Are you an engineer, or just look stuff up on the internrt to troll people? captain queeg Mar 2017 #20

You asked - Also, what the hell is a redundancy factor? Ptah Mar 2017 #21

Post counts are so meaningful when you're given accurate, source-able information in response AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #26

Grenfell Tower London gyroscope Jun 2017 #29

Because it's made of concrete, not steel. AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #30

So steel-framed buildings should collapse from fire? gyroscope Jun 2017 #31

See this building in Denmark marylandblue Jun 2017 #33

But it didn't collapse gyroscope Jun 2017 #34

It's a partial collapse marylandblue Jun 2017 #38

Madrid Tower fire. All the upper floors are framed in steel and they collapse two hours into the AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #41

Hard to believe gyroscope Jun 2017 #32

Different issue in structures marylandblue Jun 2017 #35

You're ignoring the heatsink issue gyroscope Jun 2017 #36

Structural steel is usually insulated, per fire code marylandblue Jun 2017 #37

Seriously? gyroscope Jun 2017 #39

Go look up the definition of progressive collapse marylandblue Jun 2017 #43

Explosives brought down the OKC building gyroscope Jun 2017 #45

REpeat: Go look up the definition of progressive collapse marylandblue Jun 2017 #47

OKC: Progressive collapse caused by massive explosions at the base of the building gyroscope Jun 2017 #48

See post 47 marylandblue Jun 2017 #50

This message was self-deleted by its author marylandblue Jun 2017 #51

WTC7 straddled the con-edison substation. Have you ever heard an electrical transformer blow? AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #61

Interesting theory gyroscope Jun 2017 #65

I didn't say anything about fire. AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #69

Your first sentence is true. However, it bears no relation to the WTC impacts/fires. AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #62

It's a temperature thing. Watch the video of the Madrid Tower fire. AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #42

Picture of what fire can do to structural steel marylandblue Jun 2017 #44

Good gyroscope Jun 2017 #46

Think about it this way marylandblue Jun 2017 #49

Comical analogy gyroscope Jun 2017 #52

Not really.sure how you can watch a video of a collapse marylandblue Jun 2017 #54

Madrid Tower Fire. AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #60

Cardington fire tests disprove official collapse theory gyroscope Jun 2017 #53

So tell me marylandblue Jun 2017 #55

For a total collapse to be plausible gyroscope Jun 2017 #56

Sorry that is not the correct answer to my question marylandblue Jun 2017 #57

Your own link disproves the official fairy tale gyroscope Jun 2017 #58

You did not answer my question marylandblue Jun 2017 #63

The mass sitting above the fire on the South Tower was equal to the Yamato. AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #59

I suggest we assign an exercise to.the conspiracy theorist marylandblue Jun 2017 #64

The thread topic is about WTC 7 gyroscope Jun 2017 #66

Well WTC 1 and 2 did come up earlier in the thread marylandblue Jun 2017 #67

Long span steel beams. AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #68

Well for WTC 7thinking of a different feature that isn't in WTC 1 or 2 marylandblue Jun 2017 #70

Look up Newton's third law of motion gyroscope Jun 2017 #71

How did you get from marylandblue Jun 2017 #72

So much smoke and mirrors gyroscope Jun 2017 #73

All I've done on this thread is asked questions you can't or won't answer marylandblue Jun 2017 #74