9-11 question?

Question

I was just thinking and did a little research. If the Popular mechanics website says that the optimum temperatures for the fire inside the world trade center was about 1825 degrees and that weakened the steel and caused it to warp and bend causing the collapse.

How is then that the optimum flame temperature of propane is 3500 degrees, it doesn't melt my grill or cause it to warp from gravity? And when i set things on it like a slab of ribs, it doesn't bend or warp? Should they have made the world trade centers out of what they made my grill out of?

Propane info:
http://www.flameengineering.com/Propane_Info.html

Popular Mechanics Bullsh** lies:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4#steel

Answer 1

LoL... good point. Too bad it will be lost on the 9/11 deniers. You know.. the logic. They're irrational, believing in fairytales and all.



http://www.911research.wtc7.net/

Answer 2

The fire would not have heated the metal to anything close to it's own temperatures since the entire structural grid of steel beams would act as a heatsink conducting the heat energy from the fire out into the whole grid although it would be cooler the further you get from the heat source of the fire itself. This is why you can't solder a broken water pipe with a soldering iron meant for electronic components without it being a great exercise in patience vs frustration. Although you are normally soldering to copper in either case the pipe has a lot more mass which sinks the heat energy away from the point of application. So to solder copper pipe you need something much hotter than a soldering iron like a soldering gun.



Since the fire could not have been uniform the support beams could not have all been subject to equal heating.



Without equal heating you cannot get near simultaneous failure of all the support beams



Without near simultaneous failure of all the support beams the building would fall to one side or the other rather than falling into it's own footprint. Anything else would be a hell of a fluke of nature.



Three such unlikely flukes of nature of the same type and on the same day is an event with a mind bogglingly low probability of occurance.



I suppose if the rubble from one of the buildings had stood up and formed themselves into a whole new building it would have been more miraculous but not by that much.

Answer 3

Even if Popular Mechanics was right (it wasn't) not all the steel of the building could have reached that temperature. Only the part exposed to the fire. Fire fueled by materials that burn at a temperature lower than 2500 degrees, far lower.

Anyway, the lower part of the building was cold and supported the weight of the whole building for 30 years. I'm sure it would have suffered major damage but I can't see why it turned into dust and twisted (and melted) steel. It doesn't make sense.

Building 7 fell out of sympathy?

Answer 4

A lot of people consider the Magazine "Popular Mechanics" story debunking the so called conspiracy theory proof that it isn't true. There is a good book out by a Philosopher named David Ray Griffin called "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" - An answer to Popular Mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory. In this book he makes the writers of the Popular Mechanics article look like absolute fools or downright liars. Read it and learn. There is a lot of evidence that incriminates our government in addition to the issue of melted steel.

Answer 5

What people forget with the so called pan cake option is that the core would have remained standing, or at least one building core would have. Denial to have a third party inspection on all steel evidence was denied and should be in itself proof enough that this was nothing more then an attack on our rights to live in this country by our government period, no damn question about it. So much evidence of heat 6 weeks after tell me , someone who used to blow alot of chit up, one thing, controlled! but they did a real shoddy *** job and probably controlled it all from that brand new shelter in building 7 that was built and payed for with your taxes. Good reason why Rudy wasn't in it at the time! it was already in use!

Answer 6

forget 'popular mechanics'!!



the fact that silverstein admitted on national television that he gave permission to demolish WTC7 is enough evidence for me. to demolish a huge building neatly like that needs enormous preparation & therefore he must have known about it before 9/11:



& obviously & there's a huge amount of evidence!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100&feature=related



the WTC was also no longer profitable.

its construction had already begun before the use of asbestos was banned in 1971, so spray-on asbestos fire retardant was used up to the 40th floors & a different insulating material was used for the remaining floors.



permission to have the towers demolished had been refused & the cost of the alternative, to dismantle it floor by floor, was enormous. - the scaffolding was more than $1 million.



despite this, silverstein decided to lease the WTC six months before 9/11 & promptly insured the buildings against 'terrorist' attacks. he put a down-payment of $125 million for the lease, then claimed for two separate attacks (2 planes) & was rewarded $4.6 BILLION



the WTC Construction Manager stated that the towers could have withstood multiple plane crashes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDGInaB0eQM



the firemen heard the explosions when they were inside the towers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg



a typical thermite reaction could be seen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM7HI4kjtvA



& here's a shocking experiment on how thermite can dissolve a car!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1837033714967622806&q=wtc+2



finally, if anyone starts quoting the NIST official govt report of 9/11, please scroll down to the very end where they admit that their whole theory is merely a 'hypothesis'.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm



3000 deaths & that's all they can give us - a hypothesis.





EDIT// 'KentukyGurl' & the like, don't know what they're talking about!! just ignore their ignorance!



EDIT// Set knows his stuff obviously! thanks Set!



EDIT// Jo Jo Keep - don't rely on the television!! do some research, it's not what you think.

Answer 7

LOL. These people defending Popular Mechanics are over-the-top!



Popular mechanics is a joke. Even NIST debunks PM. Yet people still claim they have read all they need to read from Popular Mechanics, "case closed". Good grief! If they want to defend a propaganda machine, at least defend the senior propaganda machine! Anyone citing Popular Mechanics as a source is actually quite helpful to the truth movement.



Here, read from NIST and compare it to Popular Mechanics,



http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm



And read the peer-reviewed article recently published in the Open Civil Engineering Journal. Get to it by clicking the words "14 points…" in the first paragraph at this Journal of 9/11 Studies page

http://www.journalof911studies.com/



or get the PDF directly from this page



The Open Civil Engineering Journal

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM



The 14 points are interesting. What is more interesting is the points noted for further and better explanation from NIST. NIST is covering up, but gradually they are being pinned to a position where they will eventually be compelled to be honest. Give it some time.



Read all that and you'll be using your Popular Mechanics rags for ______ (I have some good use for them -- you choose your own).





PM is nothing more than paid propaganda. Research the money trail, the undisclosed conflicts of interest, ownership, and the connections to people (including RELATIVES!) inside the government suspected of complicity in the events of 9/11.



To get a sense of the quality of research done by PM, listen to this two-part You Tube clip of a radio interview with their research editor David Coburn (2ND clip is the best one, but both good).



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLx5GATh_z0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb49MfDrwOo&feature=related



Popular Mechanics would be well advised to outfit Coburn with a muzzle. By speaking, he exposes Popular Mechanics for the propaganda machine that it is.



For some balance, try 911 Research

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html



or Read Griffin's book (available from Amazon). See here for a review

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5967

Answer 8

Your grill is not holding up the amount of weight proportionate to its size that the WTC structural members were.



Additionally, the size of the steel elements that make up your grill permit it to radiate the heat away, much the same way as your car radiator keeps the coolant fluid (which is subject to at least a couple thousand degrees) from boiling away.



Further, your grill's steel parts are not in the flame and therefore not subject to 3500 degrees. That temp would cremate your burgers. The temp inside the grill is probably between 350 and 600 degrees, with the grill on which your burgers cook achieving (perhaps) 650-750 degrees.



Also, the steel that gave way did so not only because it was weakened by heat, but also because the impact of the aircraft sheared off a significant number of structural members, which transferred their load, in an unbalanced manner, to the remaining members. A structural engineer visiting my family at the time predicted both buildings would fall, and that they would probably fall straight down, several minutes before the first one did so; the prediction based entirely on impact damage rather than on the (as yet unknown) heat effects.



"A little research", like a little knowledge, is a dangerous thing.

Answer 9

Just an old dusty memory...but wasn't one of the Bush family on their editorial board at the time? (Melvin?) I guess once again a Q of yours will send me back to "the google" button. WAAAHHH!



EDIT: Whoops! I was wrong! (dang) It was Chertoff's COUSIN who wrote the article. He had joined them just before 9-11. Guess I mixed it up with Bush's little brother's company doing the Security for the WTC...

Answer 10

The whole FIRE argument is a red herring anyhow.

Think about this, while the fires burned the upper damaged part of the WTC tower, the lower part of the building was virtually undamaged so HOW is it that the upper one sixth of the building could "collapse" down onto the remaining five sixths of the building and cause TOTAL DESTRUCTION. Not logical!



We have a HUGE problem here

The emperor is NAKED!

Answer 11

"Should they have made the world trade centers out of what they made my grill out of?"

Let some sociopathic freak fly a plain full of fuel and inocent people into your grill and than we will know the answer.

It was not a inside job!

Choose for yourself the many publications about the evidence, from all the plains that were to be used that day for killing.

Answer 12

To anyone capable of understanding physics and engineering - it was an obvious inside job.



The buildings fell at the rate gravity (9.8 m/sec squared) - impossible for any building with a steel structure. The fuel burned in a localized area not everywhere (most consumed by the explosion not just sitting around and burning). I watched it live seeing people who definitely said they heard more explosions and were running away after these new explosions.

Answer 13

your grill has been coated with a fireproofing to avoid melting, while the fire proofing for wtc was blown off by the impact of the plane, plus the steel beems in the wtc were of industrial, not the refined stainless steel

Answer 14

it does not heat enough melt steel, however it was high enough to warp, weaken and de-temper steel, warping the steel beams enough to collapse with the added weight of two airplanes, anyone with a lick of sense can figure that out



By the way, the Popular Mechanic is actually true, not the 9-11 conspiracy theories

Answer 15

Actually, steel melts at 2112. But a load bearing beam, supporting tons and tons will fail at much lower temperatures and it softens and looses tensile strength. And the temperature inside your grill will reach about 450 to 500 degrees, not 3500.

Answer 16

I just want to see what people answer.

Answer 17

What is your point? and why would asked such a question?



Most Americans are very sensitive to talking about this.. concerning 911..

We will never forget..



God Bless America!

Answer 18

answered about a million times. i doubt your grill supports the weight that the towers had to support.

Answer 19

the WTC was built over thirty years ago. how old is your grill?