9/11: (Updated) Caught on Tape: WTC Building 7 Damaged by Debris from Twin Towers Collapse

ABC News Video and Photographs ^ | September 13, 2001 | Jonathon Moseley

[popdonnelly]

Charlie is being as removed from reality as his father.

[mnehring]

bfltr

[Karma Police]

Karl Rove was the twelfth hijacker!

[Moseley]

That’s crazy. It was the explosives that damaged the building, just like the twin towers. /S

FreedomOfExpression Or possibly invisible UFO's from the Chimichanga galazy while here to steal our precious bodily fluids.

[ignorancerunsrampant]

I worked for years in a foundary. I poured aluminum molds. Aluminum melts at 1400 degrees. Jet fuel has an open air temp of 600 degrees. Aluminum is softer than steel and requires less heat than steel to melt. I have always been perplexed by the fact that the buildings softened enough knowing that fact. However, stranger things have happened.

[fortunecookie]

“Fire can’t melt steel!” - Rosie O’Donnell

ROFL. Funny, and sad because she is really believes that.

Perhaps Rosie needs to take a tour of a steel mill. Or watch a movie in which people work at a steel mill. Or read a book. Or snap back to reality.

I watched footage of 9/11 on the History channel last friday. I believe they had footage of how WTC7 was damaged although I had an early morning Saturday and didn't see the ending of the program. The program was a compilation of footage from many cameras and perspectives shot by people there that terrible day.

[AnAmericanMother]

It doesn't have to get anywhere near melting temperature to lose its strength. Just think about horseshoes - the farrier has just a little LPG or even (back in my youth) charcoal fire in a box on the back of his pickup truck, but that softens keg shoes enough for him to bend them with a small hammer.

Steel loses its rigidity LONG before it melts, and then the weight of the building just folds it up.

I've seen the bulldozers hauling away big steel beams that have twisted like hairpins, in an ordinary fire ("ordinary" in the sense of not involving large jetliners full of fuel and large skyscrapers built without traditional steel frame construction).

[FreedomOfExpression]

Or possibly invisible UFO's from the Chimichanga galazy while here to steal our precious bodily fluids.

Here's what REALLY happened. The invisible UFOs from the Chimichanga galaxy used their super hot salsa beams on the towers, and they thought building 7 could hold their weight when they tried to land, but they were mistaken.

Seriously, that day was a horrible moment in history.

[Moseley]

Jet fuel has an open air temp of 600 degrees. ignorancerunsrampant

600 degrees? Says who?

In their recent documetnary, 9/11 Science and Conspiracy, National Geographic hired a consultant EMRTC

http://www.emrtc.nmt.edu/

They filled a pit with jet fuel, and placed a steel beam over the top with weights attached.

In about 1 minute, the jet fuel reachd 2,000 degrees F -- NOT 600 degrees.

In about 3 1/2 minutes, the steel beam folded like a wet noodle.

Part of the problem here is that millions of people are making tens of millions of false conclusions based on bad information. And then spreading it all around the internet.

The world wide web may plunge the world into a new Dark Age of MISinformation.

[ignorancerunsrampant]

My brother is a fire investigator for the city of Chicago. He has dealt with plane crashes, just taking his information and combining it with my knowledge.

One thing to consider. Did you ever see a liquid spill. Like when a water balloon breaks, does the water maintain the form of a ball? NO! It spreads out. When the planes hit that WTC the jet fuel did not accumulate in a pit. It ran down walls and elevator shafts. The fuels spread out. That would be a little different than concetrating it all in one vat

[Moseley]

And therefore the jet fuel inside the WTC twin towers burned faster and hotter than in the EMRTC / National Geographic test. I am sure your brother will confirm that (a) an explosion is simply a very, very, very rapid fire. There is no fundamental difference except the speed at which the combustion occurs. In fact, dust can explode becuase the surface area of the dust is very small.

(b) the speed of combustion is affected by the amount of surface area where the burning can take place.

(c) Only the VAPORS (fumes) burn. The liquid does not. If you could somehow put a lighted match directly into the liquid jet fuel, without igniting the fumes, the liquid WOULD NOT BURN. It is only when the liquid is turned into a vapor that it burns.

So if you put 1 million gallons of jet fuel in a vat, the ONLY part that will burn is the vapor in the top of the vat. The amount of fuel BENEATH the surface is irrelevant. Only the surface will burn.

However, if you take 10,000 gallons and spread it out over the floor, the ENTIRE amount will burn. So the fire will burn hotter and more rapidly if you spill 10,000 gallons out across the floor then if you have 1 billion gallons in a vat, and ignite the surface.