Explain to me how this happened. [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums

tabea_blumenschein

08-06-2010, 04:42 AM

Have a look at this picture. (http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/madrid_remains.jpg)

This is a photograph showing the Madrid Windsor building after the fire.

All you have to do is explain to me why the upper part of the building in the foreground collapsed, and why the rest of it didn't. That's all I'm asking for.

Your post should look like this:

Here are the reasons the upper part of the building in the foreground collapsed ... (give reasons)

... and then ...

Here are the reasons the rest of the building remained standing ... (give reasons)

Now, that isn't asking too much, is it?

Additional information on the development of the fire, the structural response, and the subsequent investigation can be found here. (http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/windsor_madrid.html) Also see this 9/11 Myths page (http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html).

EDIT: Forgot to mention additional photographs of the building during and after the fire are on this page (http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/windsor_madrid_pictures.html) as well.

stannrodd

08-06-2010, 05:23 AM

Well I'll start the ball rolling.

The collapsed portion nearest camera appears to have suffered a partial collapse of a pancake variety and stopped at what appears to be the Mechanical floors .. usually much stronger because of the live loads they carry.

However it could be that the picture was taken during demolition after the fire.. and no such pancake collapse occurred .. and demolished debris was simply accumulating at that mechanical level.

I have only looked at the picture .. not the link to the 911Myths site.

Just my first reaction to your question.. Lead on McDuff :)

Stann
ps I didn't see you added further photo links. I will reassess ..

ultima1

08-06-2010, 06:26 AM

Well it was not all steel, it was steel with a central core of reinforced concrete that resisted the high temperatures of the fire without collapsing.

The WTC towers were almost all steel.

stannrodd

08-06-2010, 09:14 AM

NPT joke !!

A plane hit it ... therefore it didn't fall down.... :confused:

:rolleyes:

Actually I see all sorts of possibilities but red wine and a warm fire beckons..

Stann

truegroup

08-06-2010, 10:05 AM

Your post should look like this:

The bit that fell down was the steel bit. The bit that stayed up wasn't.

bryan

08-06-2010, 10:09 AM

truegroup

08-06-2010, 10:11 AM

Because it wasn't owned by Larry Silverstein.

Tactfully avoiding the question. But quite correct.

ultima1

08-06-2010, 01:15 PM

Tactfully avoiding the question. But quite correct.

Well it was not all steel, it was steel with a central core of reinforced concrete that resisted the high temperatures of the fire without collapsing.

tabea_blumenschein

09-06-2010, 04:31 AM

The answer I was going for was that the steel columns in that part of the building were weakened by the fire until they no longer could support the load they were carrying, resulting in a collapse there. The remainder of the building was concrete-framed, which performed much better in the fire than a steel core would have. That, plus the concrete "technical floor" (17th floor) added to increase the strength of the building, prevented a global collapse.

The reason I asked this question is a simple one. I am of the opinion that no hardcore 9/11 truther can ever bring himself or herself to admit that a hydrocarbon fire can cause structural steel to fail. The Windsor Madrid fire is an ideal case to bring up because (a) structural steel did fail in an ordinary hydrocarbon fire -- that's a simple, observable fact borne out by the photographs and the analysis I linked to in the opening post -- and (b) this fire is familiar to truthers because they bring it up all the time themselves. Indeed, it was due to some recent references to it on this subforum that I started this thread in the first place.

~

As I write this, no truther has said anything to change my opinion that they can't bring themselves to admit that an ordinary hydrocarbon fire could ever cause structural steel to fail. Ultima1 has danced around that fact a bit, but hasn't admitted it straight out yet. Bryan's one comment was a waste of everyone's time.

This thread will be on page 1 for the next few days, at least. We'll see whether or not I'm right.

Thanks to stannrodd, truegroup and ultima1 for posting. Bryan, if you don't have anything worth saying, how about not saying anything at all.

bryan

09-06-2010, 09:45 AM

Bryan's one comment was a waste of everyone's time.

This thread will be on page 1 for the next few days, at least. We'll see whether or not I'm right.

Thanks to stannrodd, truegroup and ultima1 for posting. Bryan, if you don't have anything worth saying, how about not saying anything at all.

I was using the inductive (scientific) method of reasoning. Only three steel-framed buildings have ever totally collapsed due to fire and all three were owned (or leased) by Larry Silverstein. It's only reasonable to consider there might be a causal link.

ultima1

09-06-2010, 09:48 AM

The reason I asked this question is a simple one. I am of the opinion that no hardcore 9/11 truther can ever bring himself or herself to admit that a hydrocarbon fire can cause structural steel to fail.

Well all i have to say is that no steel skyscraper in the US has collapsed due to fire even though several buildings had longer lasting fires.

Also in 1975 the North tower had a fire that lasted 3 hours and caused no damage to the steel, now we are supposed tio believe that fires lasting less then an hour can casued enough damage to the steel to cause a complete collapse.

phemohilia

09-06-2010, 09:50 AM

Because it wasn't owned by Larry Silverstein.

I believe THIS is the correct answer!! :D

ultima1

10-06-2010, 07:28 AM

Well all i have to say is that no steel skyscraper in the US has collapsed due to fire even though several buildings had longer lasting fires.

Also in 1975 the North tower had a fire that lasted 3 hours and caused no damage to the steel, now we are supposed tio believe that fires lasting less then an hour can casued enough damage to the steel to cause a complete collapse.

Bumped.

thesloth

10-06-2010, 07:47 AM

The Windsor Madrid fire is an ideal case to bring up because (a) structural steel did fail in an ordinary hydrocarbon fire...

But:

It burned for a full 24 hours before being put out.
The entire building was on fire during most of the time it was burning.

The quality and quantity of fire could be aspects that affect the weakening of structural steel.

ultima1

10-06-2010, 08:07 AM

But:

It burned for a full 24 hours before being put out.
The entire building was on fire during most of the time it was burning.

The quality and quantity of fire could be aspects that affect the weakening of structural steel.

In 1975 the North tower had a fire that lasted 3 hours and caused no damage to the steel, now we are supposed tio believe that fires lasting less then an hour can casued enough damage to the steel to cause a complete collapse.

apollo_gnomon

10-06-2010, 03:19 PM

In 1975 the North tower had a fire that lasted 3 hours and caused no damage to the steel, now we are supposed tio believe that fires lasting less then an hour can casued enough damage to the steel to cause a complete collapse.

Did the 1975 fire involve damage to the insulation? What was the extent of the fire? Those differences make, as they say, all the difference. All of the analysis, lab testing of beams and trusses show that the metal expands and weakens at prolonged exposure to the temperatures involved in the 9/11 fire, because the insulation had been knocked and/or scoured off by the combination of large scale impact by a jet and smaller scale impact by the cloud of debris, variously.

thesloth

10-06-2010, 03:59 PM

All of the analysis, lab testing of beams and trusses show that the metal expands and weakens at prolonged exposure to the temperatures involved in the 9/11 fire

That is exactly the point of everything. What is made bold.

apollo_gnomon

10-06-2010, 04:20 PM

Fire protection in buildings involves keeping heat from structural members. Impact by a jet at high speed knocked off the insulation. The fire was very large very quicky, as opposed to a fire that starts in one spot (like a trash can or electrical box) and spreads from that point.

Fire rated doors (for example) are rated at 1/3 hour, 3/4 hour and 1 hour. A full hour of fire is considered to be prolonged exposure, by fire fighting and fire safety standards.
http://www.steeldoor.org/res/118.pdf

ultima1

10-06-2010, 06:22 PM

Did the 1975 fire involve damage to the insulation?

The insualtion is only good for 2 hours, the fire burned for over 3 hours.

After the fire they decided to install more fire fighting material and sprinkler system.

tabea_blumenschein

11-06-2010, 04:18 AM

Ultima1, I agree with the points you are making. But apollo gnomon is correct also, you have to consider the circumstances. Stripping of SFRM from columns, damage to the buildings, jet fuel as an accelerant, no firefighting measures, etc, make the 9/11 fires pretty unique.

Again, all I want out of this thread is to see if any truthers here will admit that an office fire of sufficient intensity and duration can cause structural steel to fail. We're on page 2 and nobody's conceded that fact straight out yet.

EDIT: just wanted to add that WTC 7 stood for over over 7 hours before finally coming down, so I agree that it might take some time for the fire to weaken the steel enough to doom the burning building.

ultima1

11-06-2010, 06:05 AM

Ultima1, I agree with the points you are making. But apollo gnomon is correct also, you have to consider the circumstances. Stripping of SFRM from columns, damage to the buildings, jet fuel as an accelerant, no firefighting measures, etc, make the 9/11 fires pretty unique.

Fisrt, the jet fuel burned off in 10 minutes, so all you had was a ofice fire.

Second There were firefighting operations going on. We have the radio transcripts of them.

Again, all I want out of this thread is to see if any truthers here will admit that an office fire of sufficient intensity and duration can cause structural steel to fail.

No will not admit to that since other steel buildings had longer lasting fires then the towers and did not collapse.

EDIT: just wanted to add that WTC 7 stood for over over 7 hours before finally coming down, so I agree that it might take some time for the fire to weaken the steel enough to doom the burning building.

The fire commander decided to bring down building 7.

stannrodd

11-06-2010, 06:11 AM

bryan

11-06-2010, 06:30 AM

tabea_blumenschein

12-06-2010, 04:30 AM

Hi Tabea .. you use the term "Truthers" .. why?

I look for honest answers to honest questions.. you do that too.

Could you explain your need to label certain responders as being Truthers.

The word becomes almost an expletive at certain forums such as US Message Boards .. they use the word Troofers .. and this is applied to anyone who questions the .. Official view.

In a country/world of free speech .. this is almost outrageous.

We have the likes of Matrix, bryan and Kooskoets here .. who label anyone not being a truther as being a shill or a troll .. yet these persons cannot articulate the theory they support.

I am not a Truther nor do I support the MSM version of events.

What am I ??

Just an aside .. cheers guys

Stann

Stann, when I say "truthers" I'm thinking of people like matrix911, bryan, kooskoets, etc. What these guys have in common is their "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up" attitude. I don't put you in that category; I'd call you a "truthseeker".

Do you have any ideas for some other word besides "truther" a skeptic could use? "Conspiracy theory zealot" fits a lot of these people, but I don't think that phrase would be received very well either!

stannrodd

12-06-2010, 04:40 AM

I like truth seeker because it's what I do .. even if I don't like the outcome, it's the actual facts which determine the truth .. not attitude.

@ Bryan that was almost funny .. almost.

Thanks Tabea for your honest answer.

Stann

ultima1

12-06-2010, 08:11 AM

I like truth seeker because it's what I do .. even if I don't like the outcome, it's the actual facts which determine the truth .. not attitude.

Stann

I am with you Stann.

bryan

12-06-2010, 08:34 AM

Stann, when I say "truthers" I'm thinking of people like matrix911, bryan, kooskoets, etc. What these guys have in common is their "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up" attitude. I don't put you in that category; I'd call you a "truthseeker".

But what if Stann reaches a point in his research where he believes the only realistic conclusion is that 9/11 was an inside job?

ultima1

12-06-2010, 08:44 AM

But what if Stann reaches a point in his research where he believes the only realistic conclusion is that 9/11 was an inside job?

Well if there is where the facts lead then thats where the facts lead.

bryan

12-06-2010, 09:30 AM

Well if there is where the facts lead then thats where the facts lead.

Would he stop being a truthseeker and become a truther?

ultima1

12-06-2010, 09:40 AM

Would he stop being a truthseeker and become a truther?

Well its still looking for the truth.

What is wrong with seeking the truth?

tabea_blumenschein

13-06-2010, 04:08 AM

But what if Stann reaches a point in his research where he believes the only realistic conclusion is that 9/11 was an inside job?

Would he stop being a truthseeker and become a truther?

No, I would still consider stann to be a truthseeker, rather than a truther.

Even if stann reached the conclusion that 9/11 was an "inside job", I trust that he would still be able to explain what facts or evidence would convince him that his conclusion is wrong. For "truthers", no amount of facts or evidence is enough to convince them that they're wrong.

~

We're three pages in and I still have yet to see anyone admit that a fire of sufficient intensity and duration can cause structural steel to fail, even though that is an obvious and clearly observable fact in the Windsor Madrid fire referenced in my opening post.

ultima1

13-06-2010, 04:32 AM

even though that is an obvious and clearly observable fact in the Windsor Madrid fire referenced in my opening post.

Well for one the Windser building is not in the US. Other countries have different buidling codes.

There has never been a steel skyscraper in the US collapse from fire even though several buldings have had longer lasting fires.

stannrodd

13-06-2010, 04:35 AM

We're three pages in and I still have yet to see anyone admit that a fire of sufficient intensity and duration can cause structural steel to fail, even though that is an obvious and clearly observable fact in the Windsor Madrid fire referenced in my opening post.

Thanks for the discussion about my truth seeking .. :) .. but getting back to the topic.

In the WTC towers the horizontal beams in the core structure were actually encapsulated in concrete, while the vertical columns were clad in a cement based fire proofing material. I have a description of that cladding somewhere (a scan of the original document).

A question I haven't found an answer to is ... how did these beams rate in terms of their resistance to the fire and did they actually fail because of fire. Now given they were in the core and their exposure to fire uncertain, because of the two inch thick gypsum planking .. is it realistic to compare the windsor structure and fire to the WTC. The perimeter columns were not clad in any fire proofing from what I can gather. The usual explanation shows a failure of the floor trusses .. causing a detachment from the core and perimeter columns which initiated the collapse of the floors.

Yet the North tower antenna started moving down before the collapse, which indicated a core failure or the hat truss atop failing.

I actually don't get it. Something doesn't add up.

Stann

tabea_blumenschein

13-06-2010, 05:26 AM

Stann:

A lot of the fire proofing material was stripped off by flying plane wreckage. As for the "north antenna drop", I believe that was an optical illusion due to the slight rotation or "tipping" of the upper section of WTC 1 before that collapse began in earnest. The WTC 1 upper section didn't tilt as dramatically as the WTC 2 upper section did, but it did tilt.

Again, I'm not trying to draw comparisons here. All I'm interested in is whether any of our "truthers" will admit that fire of sufficient duration and intensity can cause structural steel to fail. The Windsor Madrid fire is a favorite of the 9/11 truth movement, and the collapse of the one section was due to structural steel failing in a fire.

It was seen to happen by eyewitnesses.
It was visually documented.
It was investigated and explained.

Does it need to be any more clear than that? But as I've been saying, our "truthers" are so tied to the "everything about 9/11 is a lie!" meme that they can't even bring themselves to admit an observable, verifiable fact that might support the so-called "official story".

We're four pages in. Truthers, can a fire of sufficient intensity and duration cause structural steel to fail, as was observed to happen in the Windsor Madrid fire?

Can any of you bring yourselves to admit this?

stannrodd

13-06-2010, 05:49 AM

A lot of the fire proofing material was stripped off by flying plane wreckage.

We have no way of knowing the extent of this .. other than the fire proofing would have been stripped mostly from one side of a column (the plane impact side) and not entirely stripped .. this would mean that given a trajectory with an expanding debris field would mean that probably less than half of the fire proofing was removed... so it is really an albatross on a shelf.

This also applies to the floor trusses being stripped of fire proofing .. but steel being a good conductor of heat ... ?

We can make assumptions .. but shouldn't really. The fire proofing at those levels would not have been the usual asbestos sprayed on filth to a two inch thickness. I have worked in blue asbestos and am on an asbestos workers register to assess my life conditions as they appear. I don't like the concept but .. if it helps the process of evaluating others conditions then it is a good thing coming from a bad thing.

So I can agree with the concept that steel alone can fail in a situation where steel encapsulated by concrete may not.

This fits logically .. OK

Stann

thesloth

13-06-2010, 05:51 AM

All I'm interested in is whether any of our "truthers" will admit that fire of sufficient duration and intensity can cause structural steel to fail.

That is the crux of everything - given "sufficient duration" and "intensity" Of-course, it will. I suppose by "intensity" we mean "temperature."

But consider a gas stove, maybe in a restaurant or some such where the stove will be "on" for several hours a day, does the cast steel support melt? No. There are many reasons... the first being the intensity of the heat is not sufficient and the second is that heat is conducted away quickly, never allowing the temperature to rise too much. But will it melt if we left the gas lighted for, say 24 hours?

I have a question too: if we assume that structural steel will fail in a hydrocarbon fire, why did the Madrid building not completely collapse like the WTC ones did? Why is part of the structure still standing? It being smaller, one would think that the fire would have done more widespread damage.

stannrodd

13-06-2010, 06:14 AM

But consider a gas stove, maybe in a restaurant or some such where the stove will be "on" for several hours a day, does the cast steel support melt? No. There are many reasons... the first being the intensity of the heat is not sufficient and the second is that heat is conducted away quickly, never allowing the temperature to rise too much. But will it melt if we left the gas lighted for, say 24 hours?

You introduced the "heat sink" idea here which I still believe is a credible part of the steel should not have failed ... quickly idea.

The "openness" of the towers construction should have been the strength with steel. The ability to conduit that heat away via the steel.

A furnace for melting steel relies on forced gasses into a hot closed environment.

BUT the expansion factor when steel is heated could have played a big role too.

Stann

bryan

13-06-2010, 10:02 AM

BUT the expansion factor when steel is heated could have played a big role too.

The truthseekers at NIST beat you to it. Thermal expansion of the floor beams is the (current) official explanation why WTC 7 started to collapse.

ultima1

13-06-2010, 11:37 AM

The truthseekers at NIST beat you to it. Thermal expansion of the floor beams is the (current) official explanation why WTC 7 started to collapse.

How many times has NIST changed thier minds on what happened? Do you know the original NIST computer model stated that plane impacts or fire did not cause the collapse?

Do you know that NIST never recovered steel from WTC 7 for testing?

tabea_blumenschein

13-06-2010, 07:10 PM

Real quick, because I don't have much time.

That is the crux of everything - given "sufficient duration" and "intensity" Of-course, it will. I suppose by "intensity" we mean "temperature."

FINALLY. Someone agrees with reality.

But consider a gas stove, maybe in a restaurant or some such where the stove will be "on" for several hours a day, does the cast steel support melt? No. There are many reasons... the first being the intensity of the heat is not sufficient and the second is that heat is conducted away quickly, never allowing the temperature to rise too much. But will it melt if we left the gas lighted for, say 24 hours?

Office fires typically reach temperatures of 1700 degrees farenheit, and structural steel supports tons of weight. For these and other reasons, your "stove" analogy doesn't strike me as a particularly good one.

Melting steel. Who said anything about steel melting? It just has to be heat-weakened. If you're standing on thin ice, does the ice have to melt altogether before you fall in the drink, or does it just have to weaken to the point it can no longer support your weight?

Heat conduction. If a section of a "thin" piece of metal is exposed to high temperatures, heat won't be conducted away from that section very quickly, due to the narrow cross-sectional area. Think of a piece of iron a blacksmith pulls out of the fire. One end can be bright red while the other is still cool enough to hold in your hand without danger. And as far as metals go, steel isn't even that good a conductor of heat. Copper, for example, conducts heat much better than steel.

I have a question too: if we assume that structural steel will fail in a hydrocarbon fire, why did the Madrid building not completely collapse like the WTC ones did? Why is part of the structure still standing? It being smaller, one would think that the fire would have done more widespread damage.

Those questions are answered on the pages I linked to in my opening post.

ultima1

14-06-2010, 03:30 AM

Melting steel. Who said anything about steel melting?

Maybe you can explain the molten steel that is showin in photos and videos that was kept at up to molten temps for up to 6 weeks in the debris pile.

stannrodd

14-06-2010, 05:29 AM

Maybe you can explain the molten steel that is showin in photos and videos that was kept at up to molten temps for up to 6 weeks in the debris pile.

I think this point is well documented and can be explained by the debris pile (being the enclosed furnace situation) with forced gasses (air) being driven by the fires need to survive in a porous debris pile. The iron age developed this technology and was refined into the modern day smelters.

There was a huge fire in each tower which became buried in a porous debris pile, containing a lot of steel and gypsum <---which as I am led to believe will assist this process.

Moot point ..?

bryan

14-06-2010, 09:40 AM

I think this point is well documented and can be explained by the debris pile (being the enclosed furnace situation) with forced gasses (air) being driven by the fires need to survive in a porous debris pile. The iron age developed this technology and was refined into the modern day smelters.

There was a huge fire in each tower which became buried in a porous debris pile, containing a lot of steel and gypsum <---which as I am led to believe will assist this process.

Moot point ..?

Here we have another technology that had to be developed and refined over the ages but was recreated to perfection by pure chance on 9/11. Do we really need smelting furnace designers and controlled demolition experts?

ultima1

14-06-2010, 09:57 AM

There was a huge fire in each tower which became buried in a porous debris pile, containing a lot of steel and gypsum <---which as I am led to believe will assist this process.?

As photos and videos show the fires in the towers were buring out.

So what was the heat source that kept such high temps in the debris pile.

aviatorexp

14-06-2010, 11:46 PM

This has always interested me.

What is the supposed 'alternative' heat source, that kept the temps high?

And Bryan no one said that the fires were recreated to perfection, they just needed the right conditions to maintain temperature. Remember also that a lot of heat was generated just from the collapse of the building let alone any fires still burning.

stannrodd

15-06-2010, 07:50 AM

As photos and videos show the fires in the towers were buring out.

So what was the heat source that kept such high temps in the debris pile.
The fires may have been burning out in the towers, probably due to a lack of fuel locally in the vicinity of the fire. Remember there was a fire prevention system in place to stop the spread.

But even a small fire remaining in the tower debris pile would now have more fuel from the collapsed building.

Why is there a need for an alternative heat source. The fire will "feed" and grow unless extinguished. Ask a fireman.

Stann

ultima1

15-06-2010, 09:06 AM

Why is there a need for an alternative heat source. The fire will "feed" and grow unless extinguished. Ask a fireman.

A simple fire would not have enough heat to keep the temps recorded for up to 6 weeks.

I suggest you do some research.

stannrodd

15-06-2010, 10:15 AM

A simple fire would not have enough heat to keep the temps recorded for up to 6 weeks.

I suggest you do some research.

It was not a simple fire.. It was a fire contained in the debris piles of two 110 storey sky scrapers and included under ground passageways and assorted other undamaged levels which fed the fire.

This was not an ordinary simple fire.

Please take your own advice.

The largest fire can be started by the smallest spark .. similarly a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

Stann

ultima1

15-06-2010, 10:49 AM

This was not an ordinary simple fire.

What was in the debris that made it not an ordinary fire? I mean was there some kind of speacial fuel that made it not ordinary?

stannrodd

15-06-2010, 10:54 AM

What was in the debris that made it not an ordinary fire? I mean was there some kind of speacial fuel that made it not ordinary?

There was a shit load of concentrated fuel for a fire to feed on. Nothing special mate.

Do you think there was something special or not ordinary in the behaviour of the debris pile fire ??

If you do .. would you like to say what that is perhaps ??

Stann

ultima1

15-06-2010, 10:55 AM

There was a shit load of concentrated fuel for a fire to feed on. Nothing special mate.

So now your saying it was an ordinary fire? Please make up your mind.

stannrodd

15-06-2010, 10:57 AM

No I never said that

ultima1

15-06-2010, 11:01 AM

No I never said that

Why are you lying? I bolded where you stated it was not an ordinary fire. Now you stated it wa an ordinary fire, nothing special.

stannrodd
Senior Member

Quote:
Originally Posted by ultima1
A simple fire would not have enough heat to keep the temps recorded for up to 6 weeks.

I suggest you do some research.

It was not a simple fire.. It was a fire contained in the debris piles of two 110 storey sky scrapers and included under ground passageways and assorted other undamaged levels which fed the fire.

This was not an ordinary simple fire.

stannrodd

15-06-2010, 11:06 PM

Why are you lying? I bolded where you stated it was not an ordinary fire. Now you stated it wa an ordinary fire, nothing special.

Ok clever clogs .. this is what I said... doh

There was a shit load of concentrated fuel for a fire to feed on. Nothing special mate.

No where in that statement did I say it was an ordinary fire. It was said in response to this posed by you...

I mean was there some kind of speacial fuel that made it not ordinary?

Nothing special mate ... OK !!

The "nothing special" part was in reference to the fuel available to the fire .. remember we were discussing the alternative heat source thing.

It was your own implication which led you to think that I said something which I didn't. And to boot you call me a liar.

You then totally ignored this part of my post which followed the above quote..

Do you think there was something special or not ordinary in the behaviour of the debris pile fire ??

If you do .. would you like to say what that is perhaps ??

This in itself indicates that I was asking you a question about the nature of the fire .. "being something special or not ordinary.."

This is not a statement of my belief .. it's a ferking question about yours, FFS.

Are you a time waster who prefers to argue semantics rather than the specifics? Get a grip or you'll find no one will engage you in intelligent discussion.

The situation we had was two 110 storey buildings collapsed into piles which were in turn on fire to some degree or other. This was not an ordinary situation.

Fire is nothing special as such .. OK .. but this was a special and unique situation to deal with. So back to my questions....

Do you think there was something special or not ordinary in the behaviour of the debris pile fire ??

If you do .. would you like to say what that is perhaps ??

Stann

ultima1

16-06-2010, 12:41 AM

[B]Do you think there was something special or not ordinary in the behaviour of the debris pile fire ??

Ordinary fire does not burn that hot that long under tons of debris with limited oxygen.

stannrodd

16-06-2010, 02:21 AM

Ordinary fire does not burn that hot that long under tons of debris with limited oxygen.

So not wanting to repeat the question but seemingly having to .. rather than assume something from what you said above.

Do you think there was something special or not ordinary in the behaviour of the debris pile fire ??

If you do .. would you like to say what that is perhaps ??

You make a broad statement above which I can show quite categorically is untrue by simply referring you to one of the many underground coal seam fires which have been burning very very hot for many years in an oxygen deprived environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_seam_fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_seam_fire)

A coal seam fire or mine fire is the underground smouldering of a coal deposit, often in a coal mine. Such fires have economic, social and ecological impacts. They are often started by lightning, grass, or forest fires, and are particularly insidious because they continue to smoulder underground after surface fires have been extinguished, sometimes for many years, before flaring up and restarting forest and brush fires nearby. They propagate in a creeping fashion along mine shafts and cracks in geologic structures.

Coal fires are a serious problem because hazards to health and safety and the environment include toxic fumes, reigniting grass, brush, or forest fires, and subsidence of surface infrastructure such as roads, pipelines, electric lines, bridge supports, buildings and homes. Whether started by humans or by natural causes, coal seam fires continue to burn for decades or even centuries until either the fuel source is exhausted; a permanent groundwater table is encountered; the depth of the burn becomes greater than the ground’s capacity to subside and vent; or humans intervene. Because they burn underground, coal seam fires are extremely difficult and costly to extinguish, and are unlikely to be suppressed by rainfall......(more at the link)

So which is it ultima1 ..? Special or ordinary ? There was plenty of fuel .. 220 floors of furnishings and other stuff and the piles were a damn site more porous than a coal mine.

Stann

ultima1

16-06-2010, 05:29 AM

You make a broad statement above which I can show quite categorically is untrue by simply referring you to one of the many underground coal seam fires which have been burning very very hot for many years in an oxygen deprived environment.

So there was coal under the fires at grond zero?

stannrodd

16-06-2010, 05:47 AM

No one should insist you answer questions around here .. and I'm not going to do that.

Feel free to respond to the question if you want .. the coal seam fire is just an analogy to show that what you claimed in your broad statement is untrue & false.

But you knew that anyway so your response is as ... Merlincove might put it is "furtherance" .. it is irrelevant and was made to be an irritant rather than constructive ... it is basically rude for the sake of it.

I have countered your claim with a valid analogy and you decide to mock the discussion via me ..?

It's actually quite easy to admit errors. It's very cathartic and is a good learning tool. Try it mate !

If you want to discuss the analogy do so.

Stann

ultima1

16-06-2010, 06:01 AM

.the coal seam fire is just an analogy to show that what you claimed in your broad statement is untrue & false.

But your analogy does not prove the statement false, its just an analogy. A coal fire is a lot dicfferent then the normal fires that were at ground zero.

Please show me how a normal fire can burn at the temps recorded for as long as recorded under tons of debris with little oxygen and no special fuel like coal.

aviatorexp

16-06-2010, 09:16 AM

Stann's point is that it does occur with coal fire.

It is therefore within the realms of possiblity that it could occur with standard office equipment acting as fuel and already ignited by the original fire contained within the far from fully compacted rubble, drawing in oxygen through the small nooks and cranies continuing to gain heat until the 'fuel' is exhausted for as long as that takes. It does not have to be the exact, same scenario to produce similar results.

I also don't know if anyone has verified that it was in fact, a) fully molten and b) steel, that was discovered. There are many metals found in all types of office equipment, not only steel and there is nothing to suggest at all that it was steel from the building construction.

Thirdly, if the assertion is that it was thermite that was the cause, why would that keep any metal molten for such a long period of time instead anyway? Would it not suffer the same suffocation as any fire, if suffocation was speculated for a 'normal fire'?

ultima1

16-06-2010, 09:51 AM

Stann's point is that it does occur with coal fire.

But its completley different then what happened at groind zero, no special fuel to burn, little oxygen.

It is therefore within the realms of possiblity that it could occur with standard office equipment acting as fuel and already ignited by the original fire contained within the far from fully compacted rubble, drawing in oxygen through the small nooks and cranies continuing to gain heat until the 'fuel' is exhausted for as long as that takes. It does not have to be the exact, same scenario to produce similar results.

A normal office fire is not going to burn at temps recorded and the time recorded.

I also don't know if anyone has verified that it was in fact, a) fully molten and b) steel, that was discovered. There are many metals found in all types of office equipment, not only steel and there is nothing to suggest at all that it was steel from the building construction.

There are photos, videos and dozens of witnesses to verify molten steel. Including firemen and demo crews.

Thirdly, if the assertion is that it was thermite that was the cause, why would that keep any metal molten for such a long period of time instead anyway? Would it not suffer the same suffocation as any fire, if suffocation was speculated for a 'normal fire'?

Thermite burns at very high temps, it burns untill fuel is used up, and does not need oxygen to burn.

I suggest doing some research before posting.

stannrodd

16-06-2010, 10:19 AM

You win .. :)
Tatty bye .. !

But its completley different then what happened at groind zero, no special fuel to burn, little oxygen.

A normal office fire is not going to burn at temps recorded and the time recorded.

There are photos, videos and dozens of witnesses to verify molten steel. Including firemen and demo crews.

Thermite burns at very high temps, it burns untill fuel is used up, and does not need oxygen to burn.

Thanks for your sound reasoning.

Stann