When did Iran get C-130's in the first place?

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"sfb" wrote in message
news:Kc8mf.27746$SY.17277@trnddc06...
Did the structural steel actually melt or deform under the loads?

The steel did not melt, but rather lost strength due to the heat. The
fireproofing was not rated for the length of time the burning fuel
caused, nor that high of temperatures. I am also skeptical about the
paper claim. I am sure it contributed, but there was one hell of a lot
of fuel, contained in a relatively small area, burning very hot.

Not to mention the force of the impact likely blew what fireproofing
there was right off the structure.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Like censorship and not getting support help? Switch to Supernews!
They won't even answer questions through your ISP!

George Patterson wrote:



The fuel only started the fires at the WTC. What kept them burning for
long enough to collapse was the tons of paper in the offices. They're
probably not as paper happy in Iran.

Nah, once the airliners punches a hole in the building too much air got
let in. That's why the fire kept burning.

Jose wrote:

Paper burns at a lower temperature, probably too low to melt steel, so
I'm not convinced. Do you have a reference for paper as the cause of
the collapse?

Paper *ignites* at a relatively low temperature. Even that is higher than the
ignition point of jet fuel. Either will produce extremely high temperatures.

As for references. William Langewiesche, "American Ground: Unbuilding the World
Trade Center." Excerpts were published in the July and September 2002 issues of
the Atlantic Monthly.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

Paper burns at a lower temperature, probably too low to melt steel, so
I'm not convinced.

Ever read "FARENHEIT 451"?

john smith wrote:

Paper burns at a lower temperature, probably too low to melt steel, so
I'm not convinced.


Ever read "FARENHEIT 451"?

Good book, good movie

The steel did not melt, as examination of the wreckage showed. What
happened was that the steel expanded from the heat, breaking the
concrete supports. It also lost as much as 90% of its strength. The
fire was not just fuel, or even paper, but also furniture, carpets, and
every other combustible in the buildings.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=4&c=y

Actually, the whole article does a pretty good job of debunking WTC
9/11 conspiracy theories.

I note that they did not consult Moller on the WTC conspiracies, but
accredited engineers and experienced emergency workers. PM has a lot of
different writers and many different consultants, some better than
others. This appears to be one of the better researched articles.

One trouble is that no media source is likely to be any more accurate.
Isn't it CNN that is currently touting "Many of those who do end up
here, seldom make it alive" as an example of clarity? :P

"cjcampbell" wrote \

Actually, the whole article does a pretty good job of debunking WTC
9/11 conspiracy theories.

I tend to take Popular Mechanics on the same level of "correctness" as the
National Inquirer, so although you are correct, it isn't because you saw it
in PM.

Didn't PM love Moller's Skycar? Hmmmm.
--
Jim in NC

Ever read "FARENHEIT 451"?

("Arketip" wrote)
Good book, good movie


Some fun on The West Wing when a young Jed Bartlet points out that his local
library is banning a book about banning books.

Two Cathedrals - End of Season Two.


Montblack

Is it anything like Michael Moore's Ferrenheit 911?