atheists and "conspiracy" theories

[Cyberman]

Indeed. Given all the mistrust that governments have engendered, whether justified or not, it's only natural that the first reaction for many people is to smell a conspiracy; even where there is none.

Also, so glad to hear you haven't swallowed the Moon-hoax pill!

[Cinjin]

Unfathomably hot fire at the top 11-17 floors will not destroy a whole 110 story building.

I can't completely rule out some kind of ground forces involvement on 911 either, but there's no way you can make this assertion. Even architects and engineers can't say with absolute certainty what the weight of 20 stories worth of steel, wood and masonry is going to do to a building. There's just too many unknowns. Also, accepting Zeitgeist as an authority on the topic is not going to garner you any points.

[Abishalom]

It was not the top. The fire was concentrated near the top. The infrastructure was severely compromised. What part of that do you not understand? The building was made to withstand an impact, not an impact and a fire of that intensity. If there had been just a gaping hole in the building, it would have continued standing. The structure would have remained intact enough to continue holding the floors beneath the impact. Given that the floors beneath the impact were damaged by the fire, it was nothing at all for the floors above it to continue putting pressure on the compromised structure until it collapsed.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that there is zero evidence for controlled demo beyond conjecture. There were no tell tale flashes or explosions. You can't hide explosions from that many cameras.

It doesn't matter...a fire (fueled by jet fuel) on the top portion of a 110 story building reinforced by steel and concrete. To "severely compromise" the steel used in the WTC you would need the jet fuel to exceed temperatures of 1300-1500 degrees C but jet fuel (the kind on those planes) only burns at around 200-300 degrees C in the open air conditions.

[Shell B]

And . . . how did you reach that conclusion? I'm far from being an engineer, but I did study welding and precision mechanics. I'm perfectly familiar with how steel melts and what it takes to melt it.

This guy is an engineer. Allow him to explain.

http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html

I can tell you that he is absolutely correct. If I had my settings wrong, I could seriously weaken and even deform steel, but it would not cut or weld, depending on what I was doing with it. Mind you, it can be crushed and manipulated in many ways. Steel is not the be all, end all of metals. I could put a sheet of it in a one-ton brake and it would bend like butter in the sun. How many tons do you suppose those top floors weighed?

[Cyberman]

Many sites refer to the difference in the melting point of steel and the burning temperature of jet fuel as proof that the World Trade Center could not have fallen from the aircraft fires. What those authors fail to note is that while steel melts at around 1,370°C (2500°F) it begins to lose its strength at a much lower temperature. The steel structure of the World Trade Center would not have to melt in order for the buildings to lose their structural integrity. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel.

Not just hit for six; batted clean out of the grounds. Even if he can't spell "aluminium".

[Shell B]

Before anyone says, but, but, they found molten (as in liquified) metal at the base of the WTC, that is not true. The "evidence" for this is red hot hunks of metal that look like they could have been puddles in photographs. Believe me, steel that had gone through a collapse like that would be malformed with or without melting temperatures and red hot is not melting. If that were true, we would be unable to weld anything, as the metal around a weld tends to get red hot during the weld, yet it does not melt. White hot is melting or about to melt.

[libalchris]

It was not the top. The fire was concentrated near the top. The infrastructure was severely compromised. What part of that do you not understand? The building was made to withstand an impact, not an impact and a fire of that intensity. If there had been just a gaping hole in the building, it would have continued standing. The structure would have remained intact enough to continue holding the floors beneath the impact. Given that the floors beneath the impact were damaged by the fire, it was nothing at all for the floors above it to continue putting pressure on the compromised structure until it collapsed.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that there is zero evidence for controlled demo beyond conjecture. There were no tell tale flashes or explosions. You can't hide explosions from that many cameras.

It doesn't matter...a fire (fueled by jet fuel) on the top portion of a 110 story building reinforced by steel and concrete. To "severely compromise" the steel used in the WTC you would need the jet fuel to exceed temperatures of 1300-1500 degrees C but jet fuel (the kind on those planes) only burns at around 200-300 degrees C in the open air conditions.

Steel loses half its structural integrity at 600 degrees Celsius. Jet fuel, in open air conditions, burns 500-600 degrees Celsius. Don't forget that there are also many other combustible materials inside the buildings. Some reports show that temperatures in some pockets hit nearly 1000 degrees Celsius. That's plenty to damage the structural integrity enough to cause one floor to collapse. The weight of the falling floors combined with the extra force from all the top floors falling would be plenty to cause a complete collapse.

---

[Abishalom]

And . . . how did you reach that conclusion? I'm far from being an engineer, but I did study welding and precision mechanics. I'm perfectly familiar with how steel melts and what it takes to melt it.

This guy is an engineer. Allow him to explain.

http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html

I can tell you that he is absolutely correct. If I had my settings wrong, I could seriously weaken and even deform steel, but it would not cut or weld, depending on what I was doing with it. Mind you, it can be crushed and manipulated in many ways. Steel is not the be all, end all of metals. I could put a sheet of it in a one-ton brake and it would bend like butter in the sun. How many tons do you suppose those top floors weighed?

Let's focus on your article...
" I answered this question many years ago and it has been referenced in many different web sites and reports. There has been one misrepresentation that has come from that. Many sites refer to the difference in the melting point of steel and the burning temperature of jet fuel as proof that the World Trade Center could not have fallen from the aircraft fires. What those authors fail to note is that while steel melts at around 1,370°C (2500°F) it begins to lose its strength at a much lower temperature. The steel structure of the World Trade Center would not have to melt in order for the buildings to lose their structural integrity. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel."

I presume you are talking about this point here. Well if that is the case this person does not mention the limitations of jet fuel which burns at about 200-300 degrees C in open air conditions (similar to WTC conditions) well below the temperature require to "severely compromise" steel.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I'm perfectly familiar with how steel melts and what it takes to melt it.

I'm not. However, as far as I can tell,,official reports made no mention of steel melting.The steel heated and expanded and that is what caused it to buckle and collapse. It's a non issue.

[Abishalom]

Steel loses half its structural integrity at 600 degrees Celsius. Jet fuel, in open air conditions, burns 500-600 degrees Celsius. Don't forget that there are also many other combustible materials inside the buildings. Some reports show that temperatures in some pockets hit nearly 1000 degrees Celsius. That's plenty to damage the structural integrity enough to cause one floor to collapse. The weight of the falling floors combined with the extra force from all the top floors falling would be plenty to cause a complete collapse.

---

You're bumping the number up to fit your argument. Jet fuel burn under 350 degrees C in open air conditions.

To your combustible material inside point I say that there had to be automatic sprinklers inside (which would lower the intensity of the jet fueled burning).

To your "weight of falling floors' claim. It just holds absolutely no water. We are talking about 11-17 floors collapsing. That will not destroy a whole building (especially in under 2 hours).