well it certainly wasnt as bad as the madrid fire. And that building did not collapse. Not to mention as someone already did, there were people in the holes of the WTC where the plane hit and firefighters saying they could put hte fire out. Not too hot it seems.
This is why I'm going to leave this thread, you guys continue to flaunt ignorance up and down and I;m not going to keep playing physics teacher with you anymore...
There is ZERO definitive evidence to back that up. Nobody knows for sure how hot the WTC fires were. I'm not saying "they collapsed from fire", I'm saying its a POSSIBILIY, even though a slight one.
What else was the fire burning besides desks, chairs and papers?
No, I agree it lost some structural integrity, but not enough as that compared to other buildings. You completely negate the fact that the WTCs were the only buildings in ALL OF ****ING HISTORY OF THE GOD **** EARTH that have ever fallen because of a fire.
The heatsink is as valid as a heatsink on an amp. Metal spreads out its heat, exact same principle as in the amps you use in your car. Except the WTC was on a much larger scale, so more heat was dispersed over a given area. If you belive the heatsink theory is a theory, then tell that to amp makers all over the world. Maybe you can convince them that heat/aluminum do not spread their heat.
Now you're just being a jackass. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wave.gif.002382ce7d7c19757ab945cc69819de1.gif
I did not read what everyone else wrote, but if you get into some forces then you realize that when the heated steel, regardless of grade, is under compression and tension, you do not have to reach melting point to see failure. This is the exact reason i did not link the rest of the article.
nothing really, my point is that these guys are too caught up on the burning of "jet fuel" to step back and realize that a fire is a fire and under the correct conditions, they can burn at pretty extreme temperatures despite what exactly is one part of the fuel for it.
exactly, I feel nobody can come to an unbiased conclusion at this point.. most people have only watched a few biased videos, thats what upsets me the most, I like to try to be the other side of the debate, whether I personally believe it or not.
okay, lets say youre correct...and the people standing and looking out of the entrance holes of the building were standing across from the fire burning so hot to compimise the stregnth of the steal..causing it to collapse..
Exactly. The steel in the WTC's was certified to burn at 2000 degrees for over 6 hours. It was high-grade steel, of much stronger integrity than that of the Madrid hotel, and the Madrid hotel didn't even collapse. Yet you seem to think stronger, certified steel was weakened and collapsed by a fire than burned FAR shorter, less hotter (look at the pics for yourself, if you believe otherwise you are in denial) than the fire in Madrid that DID NOT COLLAPSE THE WEAKER STEEL.
I understand this, but its still a possibility.
You would be too if you had to deal with these people and their vodoo-"science"
