more on the molten steel at the WTC

[mhgaffney]

I couldn't find the old thread where Bronco Bob and I were hashing this out - so here goes a new one.

Check out this story from the Philadelphia Inquirer, including testimony from a NYC fireman who worked through the cleanup. It reports that as late as Feb 2002 molten steel wasseen dripping from steel beams in process of removal from the "bathtub". MHG

Recovery worker reflects
on months spent at Ground Zero

Copyright 2002 Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service
Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service
Philadelphia Inquirer...05/29/2002

By Jennifer Lin

NEW YORK _

Towering floodlights filled Ground Zero with an electric glow last Friday as Joe "Toolie" O'Toole, a Bronx firefighter, descended into the 16-acre pit for his overnight shift.

For five months, O'Toole has worked with a crew of 100 firefighters, combing every shovelful of debris at the World Trade Center site for the remains of the dead.

O'Toole said he would not leave until the last mound of dirt is upended and sifted for fragments of bones.

"I'm here till the end," O'Toole said. "How can I leave?"

But that time has come. Thursday, O'Toole will join other recovery workers and the families of victims to mark a ceremonial end to the recovery effort. In the 8 months since Sept. 11, hundreds of workers have removed more than 1 million tons of concrete and steel, and retrieved almost 20,000 body parts.

Firefighters like O'Toole have spent lifetimes helping people live. But at Ground Zero, they have taken on the added task of helping people cope with death.

One of the strangers whom O'Toole has helped was Fiona Havlish, of Lower Makefield, Pa., whose husband, Donald Havlish Jr., died in the South Tower.

O'Toole met Havlish briefly during his first week on the job in January. She was volunteering at St. Paul's Chapel, a relief center for recovery and construction workers. He was on a break, warming up.

After hellos, he didn't really know what more to say to her.

"There was a lot of pain in that woman," O'Toole recalled. "I could feel it. I didn't know what the hell to do. I was lost and I was very nervous. I really didn't want to talk to her."

He returned to Ground Zero, where a heavy machine with a clawlike grappler was lifting a steel box-beam that weighed 800 pounds a foot. O'Toole watched the claw release, sending the steel hulk crashing to the ground.

He thought of Fiona Havlish. He shuddered to picture the brute force of steel timbers hurling to the ground from 110 stories.

O'Toole went back to the chapel and, pulling Fiona aside, told her point blank that her husband didn't feel a thing.

"I felt I had to talk to her," O'Toole said. "I didn't have a right to say something, but I thought it might help her."

It did. In a note to O'Toole, she told him that knowing that her husband's death may have been swift "was about the only thing I could hold onto."

When O'Toole signed on for trade center duty in January, he thought it would be a 30-day assignment. But after one month, he volunteered for another. And another. And another. And another.

Tall and redheaded, the 47-year-old married father of three grown children speaks in an unhurried way about Ground Zero. He said he felt driven to keep working there to bring honor in death for the victims. Every time the crew discovered a body, they placed it on a stretcher, covered it with an American flag, and prayed.

"Each person was treated with the greatest dignity and respect," O'Toole said. "Everybody."

Too often, what he saw in the underground cavities was too unspeakable to share with anyone, even his wife.

"It didn't go home with me," O'Toole said. "It didn't even go to the firehouse. It remained with the people who saw it. If you didn't see it, you didn't want to see it."

He said workers found pockets that were "hot" with intact bodies. "You would find clusters and groups. It was very emotional, but you're not thinking about it. You just think, you've got to get these people out of here."

The first time O'Toole came face to face with the destruction of the twin towers was dawn on Sept. 13. He said it felt as if he were standing in the portal to hell.

"All the steel sticking up, it was like Satan's fingers," O'Toole said. "The sun was coming up and reflecting off the buildings. It made an eerie glow as it came through the haze."

In those early days, when firefighters were still hoping to rescue trapped victims, they hauled away concrete, ash and glass "by the spoonful," careful not to disturb the wreckage too much.

"We passed out metal rebar one 4-foot piece at a time," he said. "The men never gave up hope."

But by the time O'Toole started working at Ground Zero full time in January, heavy equipment was being used to haul away wreckage. Before a truck could leave to take its load to a barge, bound for the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island, the cargo would be placed in a "rake field" where firefighters worked like archeologists, searching for fragments of bones.

At the site, O'Toole's job has mostly involved handling logistics _ taking water to fellow workers, shuttling tools back and forth, getting more lights on rake fields. "I've done everything down here," O'Toole said. "I've been a tour guide, funeral director, counselor, exhumer."

Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said.


(c) 2002, The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Here's a photo a red hot steel being removed from the hole 6 weeks afetr 9/11

[mhgaffney]

Here's another photo taken on 9/11 or within a day or two of 9/11. Notice the white hot light from the hole. This is the color of molten steel -- not molten aluminum or copper or some other metal.

[W*GS]

Here's another photo taken on 9/11 or within a day or two of 9/11. Notice the white hot light from the hole. This is the color of molten steel -- not molten aluminum or copper or some other metal.

You've got to be joking.

[Bronco Bob]

Here's another photo taken on 9/11 or within a day or two of 9/11. Notice the white hot light from the hole. This is the color of molten steel -- not molten aluminum or copper or some other metal.

No, that's not the color of molten steel. I take it you've never been
to Pueblo, Colorado when the steel mill was still running.
How do we know this isn't the light from an electrical light fixture?

[W*GS]

If there was sufficient white-hot (even molten!) steel in that hole to give off that much illumination, the firefighter most over the hole would be dead.

[Meck77]

Gaf I'm curious. How many websites do you work with this stuff? 5? 10? 20 or more?

Are you a Broncos fan or is this just one of dozens of sites you use to spread your message?

[W*GS]

Check out this story from the Philadelphia Inquirer, including testimony from a NYC fireman who worked through the cleanup. It reports that as late as Feb 2002 molten steel wasseen dripping from steel beams in process of removal from the "bathtub"

How much energy does it take to keep steel molten for at least 5 months? From what source? Mini-nukes? How?

[enjolras]

ok..someone had to have hjiacked his account or something. This is hysterical.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Here's another photo taken on 9/11 or within a day or two of 9/11. Notice the white hot light from the hole. This is the color of molten steel -- not molten aluminum or copper or some other metal.You're a looney toon, completely gone. As someone who has worked steel most of my life, you don't have the first clue about metallurgy, but worse, your ignorance has rendered you the forum joke.

[alkemical]

Here's another photo taken on 9/11 or within a day or two of 9/11. Notice the white hot light from the hole. This is the color of molten steel -- not molten aluminum or copper or some other metal.

Would a cutting tool cause this light?

[theAPAOps5]

Ok this settles it I know I have heard this guy on Coast to Coast with George Noory.

[Rohirrim]

Here's another photo taken on 9/11 or within a day or two of 9/11. Notice the white hot light from the hole. This is the color of molten steel -- not molten aluminum or copper or some other metal.

Yippee kai yay! This is getting to be really entertaining. I think I might know the source of that light. Everready. Ha!

[theAPAOps5]

Ok guys I have come across some key evidence that really stengthens Gaffney's claims. We might all owe him an apology:




http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n224/ApaOps5/theCause.jpg

[ak1971]

I think I figured out whats in the suitcase in Pulp Fiction...molten steel!

[Rohirrim]

Run away! Run away!

[mhgaffney]

Would a cutting tool cause this light?

It's impossible to know for sure what was in the hole in this case, but the photo is suggestive, to say the least.

It's true that workers on site used steel cutting tools -- however I suspect the above photo was taken on 911 or within days of the attack -- before the clean up began. The ground was so hot it melted the firemen's rubber boots. If you dropped a piece a paper on the ground it would ignite.

In Joel Meyerowitz's 911 photo album there are photos of standing stubs -- steel columns cut by workers. In every case, however, they cut them off even -- not at 45 degree + angles. Check out this photo (below) of one of the WTC's massive core columns. As you can see , it was cut at a 45 + degree angle -- exactly the fingerprint you would expect from a shaped charge.

As for the "white light," my source here is Steven Jones, who is a physicist and an expert on thermite and thermate. According to Jones, when either of these steel cutting agents is set off -- the reaction is extremely fast -- especially with thermate -- like a hot knife through butter. The light is white hot.

Here's a link to an informative interview with Jones about thermite.
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/070606jones.htm

I expected a strong reaction to this thread. You can almost "see" the knee jerks flying into a fit of hysterical rage. The photos are too real for them, evidently.

[theAPAOps5]

No the response is too real for you to accept. Its funny how people post evidence in your threads yet you casually toss them aside. However, when we toss aside your outrageous claims you blow them off just as much, yet call us out.

What is the flashpoint of Jet Fuel, what temp does it burn at? Can you answer that or has your research failed to look at that? Just curious because you say we ignore details but somehow I think you do the same.

[mhgaffney]

What is the flashpoint of Jet Fuel, what temp does it burn at? Can you answer that or has your research failed to look at that? Just curious because you say we ignore details but somehow I think you do the same.

I covered this in my critique of the NIST report. Here's the passage

"The fact is that jet fuel, which is essentially kerosene, will not burn in air in excess of about 1,000°C (1,832°F)–––nowhere near the 2,750°F melting point of steel. Even this 1,000°C upper limit is very difficult to achieve, since, as Thomas Eagar pointed out, it requires the optimal mixing of fuel with oxygen during combustion, which can only be achieved in a laboratory. In fact, the clouds of black smoke that poured out of the twin towers on 9/11 were an obvious sign that the WTC fire burned at much lower temperatures, probably around 650°C (1,202°F) range, or even lower. This was due to the inefficient mixing of oxygen. It’s why most building fires burn no hotter than around 500-650°C. (932 -1,202°F)"

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15970.htm

The NIST admitted that the jet fuel was consumed in about 10 minutes. In the case of the south tower much of it burned OUTSIDE the tower.

[theAPAOps5]

I covered this in my critique of the NIST report. Here's the passage

"The fact is that jet fuel, which is essentially kerosene, will not burn in air in excess of about 1,000°C (1,832°F)–––nowhere near the 2,750°F melting point of steel. Even this 1,000°C upper limit is very difficult to achieve, since, as Thomas Eagar pointed out, it requires the optimal mixing of fuel with oxygen during combustion, which can only be achieved in a laboratory. In fact, the clouds of black smoke that poured out of the twin towers on 9/11 were an obvious sign that the WTC fire burned at much lower temperatures, probably around 650°C (1,202°F) range, or even lower. This was due to the inefficient mixing of oxygen. It’s why most building fires burn no hotter than around 500-650°C. (932 -1,202°F)"

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15970.htm

The NIST admitted that the jet fuel was consumed in about 10 minutes. In the case of the south tower much of it burned OUTSIDE the tower.

See and the fact that you researched that makes you at least a little more credible with me. Again I wholly disagree with you but at least you try to educate yourself.

[W*GS]

It's impossible to know for sure what was in the hole in this case, but the photo is suggestive, to say the least.

What it suggests is not what you had in mind.

The ground was so hot it melted the firemen's rubber boots. If you dropped a piece a paper on the ground it would ignite.

That's still a long ways from hot enough to melt steel.

In Joel Meyerowitz's 911 photo album there are photos of standing stubs -- steel columns cut by workers. In every case, however, they cut them off even -- not at 45 degree + angles.

"Every" case? You know that for 100% sure?

Check out this photo (below) of one of the WTC's massive core columns. As you can see , it was cut at a 45 + degree angle -- exactly the fingerprint you would expect from a shaped charge.

One column out of hundreds (thousands) that has a ~45 degree cut (and could not have been cut by workers, you're 100% certain of that!) and ergo, we have demolition.

How many steps in the argument are you missing?

As for the "white light," my source here is Steven Jones, who is a physicist and an expert on thermite and thermate. According to Jones, when either of these steel cutting agents is set off -- the reaction is extremely fast -- especially with thermate -- like a hot knife through butter. The light is white hot.

Why would there be "white-hot" light coming from a thermate charge hours or days after its use as an agent of demolition? You've absolutely ruled out all other possibilities, correct? How did you absolutely rule out a completely mundane (say, a powerful electric search light) explanation?

I expected a strong reaction to this thread. You can almost "see" the knee jerks flying into a fit of hysterical rage. The photos are too real for them, evidently.

"Hysterical rage"? More like "hysterical laughter".

The photos are real - your interpretations of them, and the flights of fancy you go on based on those whacked interpretations, are unreal.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It's impossible to know for sure what was in the hole in this case, but the photo is suggestive, to say the least. It's more than suggestive Sherlock, it's what happens to steel after being cut apart by BMs IWs and PFs from the NYC locals who volunteered to help look for survivors, using oxygen lances and cutting torches. The gray residue remaining (dripping down the sides of the box beam) is called slag.

It's true that workers on site used steel cutting tools -- however I suspect the above photo was taken on 911 or within days of the attack -- before the clean up began.No sh*t? Did your internet source help you figure that one out too?

[alkemical]

It's impossible to know for sure what was in the hole in this case, but the photo is suggestive, to say the least.

It's true that workers on site used steel cutting tools -- however I suspect the above photo was taken on 911 or within days of the attack -- before the clean up began. The ground was so hot it melted the firemen's rubber boots. If you dropped a piece a paper on the ground it would ignite.

In Joel Meyerowitz's 911 photo album there are photos of standing stubs -- steel columns cut by workers. In every case, however, they cut them off even -- not at 45 degree + angles. Check out this photo (below) of one of the WTC's massive core columns. As you can see , it was cut at a 45 + degree angle -- exactly the fingerprint you would expect from a shaped charge.

As for the "white light," my source here is Steven Jones, who is a physicist and an expert on thermite and thermate. According to Jones, when either of these steel cutting agents is set off -- the reaction is extremely fast -- especially with thermate -- like a hot knife through butter. The light is white hot.

Here's a link to an informative interview with Jones about thermite.
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/070606jones.htm

I expected a strong reaction to this thread. You can almost "see" the knee jerks flying into a fit of hysterical rage. The photos are too real for them, evidently.

If the thermite is fast acting, then how fast is "fast"? That picture is much later than when the actual charge would have went off, correct? I've used cutting torches that were white like that. If the ground would be so freaking hot to keep melted steel white hot, how can those firefighters stand there? Now, i've never "seen" white hot molten steel, but would it be "Bright" like that? White doesn't denote "bright", and IMO for something to emit light it has to either reflect or produce it itself. Yes, even if the steel were molton - i believe the light would be different, more dull IMO.

[theAPAOps5]

Jet Fuel burning in a controlled environment has a burn temp of 1,000°C. But introduce more oxygen say from fanning the flames or wind and temps skyrocket. Have you ever been at the top of the world trade center? Its pretty windy up there. The impact areas easily exposed the fire already burning at extreme temps to wind and oxygen. Thus the temps viably could have increased at or near melting levels.

[Rohirrim]

Jet Fuel burning in a controlled environment has a burn temp of 1,000°C. But introduce more oxygen say from fanning the flames or wind and temps skyrocket. Have you ever been at the top of the world trade center? Its pretty windy up there. The impact areas easily exposed the fire already burning at extreme temps to wind and oxygen. Thus the temps viably could have increased at or near melting levels.

That's an interesting idea that I've never heard before. I wonder if anyone has ever investigated that possibility? If one of the holes in one of those buildings resembled the shape of a choked off carborateur filled with burning jet fuel and then the wind started pouring in, you could create a blast furnace effect.

[theAPAOps5]

That's an interesting idea that I've never heard before. I wonder if anyone has ever investigated that possibility? If one of the holes in one of those buildings resembled the shape of a choked off carborateur filled with burning jet fuel and then the wind started pouring in, you could create a blast furnace effect.

Exactly! But Gaf I am sure will nonchalantly blow this whole concpet off with some study. It is a very reasonable theory though. Especially since it was very crude it probably didn't have the effect of a true blast furnace thus only pockets of steel melted. Most likely near where the fire burned the hottest from the start.

[Rohirrim]

Exactly! But Gaf I am sure will nonchalantly blow this whole concpet off with some study. It is a very reasonable theory though. Especially since it was very crude it probably didn't have the effect of a true blast furnace thus only pockets of steel melted. Most likely near where the fire burned the hottest from the start.

Well, there's two ways to go. One, is to follow the evidence. The other is to make the evidence go where you want. Gaff is on that second track.

[theAPAOps5]

Very true.

[Bronco Bob]

But the thing is, the kerosene from the jets didn't have to get hot enough
to melt the steel, just hot enough to weaken the steel to the point it
no longer supported the building. Steel becomes significantly weaker
at temperatures much lower than it's melting point. So it doesn't
matter if a kerosene flame is 1,832°F and steel melts at 2,750°F.
I'm not sure what Gaffney is trying to prove with his claims of molten
steel that were around weeks after the building fell. Any fires still
burning would be from the paper and furniture trapped under the rubble,
and they might have heated metal from the wreckage hot enough
to give off a visible glow when pulled out
(There is a coal mine in the Pennsylvania mining town of Centralia that
has been burning since 1961, so it is possible for trapped ordinary carbon
based combustables to burn a long time.)
I don't see how some glowning steel pulled from the wreckage proves thermite
or mini-nukes or whatever were used to bring down the building.

[theAPAOps5]

He is arguing that there a pics that clearly show motlen steel or remnants of steel. Its given that the steel was compromised by just the heat. If he wants to claim that the steel was molten I just provided him with a viable justification.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

He is arguing that there a pics that clearly show motlen steel or remnants of steel. Its given that the steel was compromised by just the heat. If he wants to claim that the steel was molten I just provided him with a viable justification.No, no steel was melted. I've been over this numerous times before in other threads showing the melting points of mild steel used in tower (skyscraper) construction. Blast furnaces can only create enough heat to melt iron (steel) using pure oxygen injection. I've built these type structures for decades, work at steel mills (CF&I) and demoed steel structures. I (and others) personally cut apart the furnaces (6 inch thick liners) at CF&I using oxygen lances (watch the movie 'Thief' if you want to know what they are). I've also cut solid steel up to 4 inches thick using a regular cutting torch.

The steel columns were not melted but some severed by impact and many others compromised by heat. It only takes about 650C temperature to compromise up to 50% of the integrity of mild steel.

[TheDave]

Here's another photo taken on 9/11 or within a day or two of 9/11. Notice the white hot light from the hole. This is the color of molten steel -- not molten aluminum or copper or some other metal.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=19241&stc=1&d=1179211618

If that light was from "molten metal"... the firemen looking directly into the hole would resemble this.

http://www.geocities.com/cinemorgue2/ronaldlacey2.JPG

[theAPAOps5]

No, no steel was melted. I've been over this numerous times before in other threads showing the melting points of mild steel used in tower (skyscraper) construction. Blast furnaces can only create enough heat to melt iron (steel) using pure oxygen injection. I've built these type structures for decades, work at steel mills (CF&I) and demoed steel structures. I (and others) personally cut apart the furnaces (6 inch thick liners) at CF&I using oxygen lances (watch the movie 'Thief' if you want to know what they are). I've also cut solid steel up to 4 inches thick using a regular cutting torch.

The steel columns were not melted but some severed by impact and many others compromised by heat. It only takes about 650C temperature to compromise up to 50% of the integrity of mild steel.

And your evidence trumps mine so I can say we did pretty good disputing his theory.

[mhgaffney]

Jet Fuel burning in a controlled environment has a burn temp of 1,000°C. But introduce more oxygen say from fanning the flames or wind and temps skyrocket. Have you ever been at the top of the world trade center? Its pretty windy up there. The impact areas easily exposed the fire already burning at extreme temps to wind and oxygen. Thus the temps viably could have increased at or near melting levels.

The fires that supposedly weakened the steel columns were INSIDE the building. Any breeze on the outside of the building would have at most a margin influence. Here is why.

To get more oxygen into the building to fan the fire you need portals for the wind to enter and blow through. Consider the case of WTC 1. True, there was a large entry hole on the north side of the tower where the 767 penetrated the building.

One hole is not enough, however. You need a second hole to have a draft -- and the limiting factor here is not the large size of the entry hole -- but the fact that the second hole (or holes) where windows were blown out or engine parts exited were SMALL.

The flow of oxygen into the burning tower is limited by the smaller hole size. This was explained to me by a retired fireman. In fact, I posted his comments on a different thread some months back. He agreed with me that the systematic collapse of the WTC towers should not have happened, given that the fires were sporadic. At no time, for example, was an entire floor of WTC 1 ablaze. In a given area the fires built to a maximum intensity in about 15 minutes, then declined in that area -- while moving on.

This is not enough time to heat the massive steel columns enough to weaken them to any significant extent -- let alone cause a general collapse.

Sorry, but you are vastly over estimating the ability of a sporadic 1,000 degree fire to weaken massive steel columns. This would take much longer than 1-2 hours. Much of the heat simply wicked away through the building's vast steel infrastructure -- as I pointed out in my critique.

This is no doubt why no steel frame high rise building had ever collapsaed due to a fire -- before 911 -- nor has any since.

You are way short of explaining the collapses as due to fire. The fireman agreed with me that any collapses due to fire on 911 would have been local and partial -- not global. The systematic global nature of the collapses point to the use of of explosives -- the only way to achieve gthis result. In the case of WTC 7 this was especially obvious.

Your theory that the breeze at floor 78-80 fannned the fires in the tpwer and heated them up is not supported.

[mhgaffney]

Remember -- the only place in the WTC where the fire proofing material was not in place was in the impact zone. Everywhere else the steel was protected from fire. The protective material was rated at two - three hours. This means that no significant heating of these steel columns would have occurred between the moment of the plane impacts and the collapse.

Any collapse would have been limited to the impact zone -- and would have been partial.

The global collapse is therefore not explainable via the fires of 911.

[theAPAOps5]

The fires that supposedly weakened the steel columns were INSIDE the building. Any breeze on the outside of the building would have at most a margin influence. Here is why.

To get more oxygen into the building to fan the fire you need portals for the wind to enter and blow through. Consider the case of WTC 1. True, there was a large entry hole on the north side of the tower where the 767 penetrated the building.

One hole is not enough, however. You need a second hole to have a draft -- and the limiting factor here is not the large size of the entry hole -- but the fact that the second hole (or holes) where windows were blown out or engine parts exited were SMALL.

The flow of oxygen into the burning tower is limited by the smaller hole size. This was explained to me by a retired fireman. In fact, I posted his comments on a different thread some months back. He agreed with me that the systematic collapse of the WTC towers should not have happened, given that the fires were sporadic. At no time, for example, was an entire floor of WTC 1 ablaze. In a given area the fires built to a maximum intensity in about 15 minutes, then declined in that area -- while moving on.

This is not enough time to heat the massive steel columns enough to weaken them to any significant extent -- let alone cause a general collapse.

Sorry, but you are vastly over estimating the ability of a sporadic 1,000 degree fire to weaken massive steel columns. This would take much longer than 1-2 hours. Much of the heat simply wicked away through the building's vast steel infrastructure -- as I pointed out in my critique.

This is no doubt why no steel frame high rise building had ever collapsaed due to a fire -- before 911 -- nor has any since.

You are way short of explaining the collapses as due to fire. The fireman agreed with me that any collapses due to fire on 911 would have been local and partial -- not global. The systematic global nature of the collapses point to the use of of explosives -- the only way to achieve gthis result. In the case of WTC 7 this was especially obvious.

Your theory that the breeze at floor 78-80 fannned the fires in the tpwer and heated them up is not supported.


Actually the "fireman" you interviewed doesn't know **** from shinola. The smaller the hole the more funneled the air flow. Think about the minor impact that is created when opening a door on either side of the house. I gurantee that the through flow of the impact of the jets could easily create a vaccuum/blast furnace to adequately raise the temps necessary.

THis is a moot point as Bronco Beerslug pointed out. Most likely the collapse was from the failure of the steel rather than the melting of the steel. And that "molton" lava you think you see is just burning material. And the bright light shining so intensly on the firemans faces is probably a flashlight or more likely a spot light. Sorry bud this argument has been clearly debunked.

[W*GS]

You are so full of it, gaffney.

The fires that supposedly weakened the steel columns were INSIDE the building.

No "supposedly" at all.

At no time, for example, was an entire floor of WTC 1 ablaze. In a given area the fires built to a maximum intensity in about 15 minutes, then declined in that area -- while moving on.

Reference for this "15 minutes" number, please.

This is not enough time to heat the massive steel columns enough to weaken them to any significant extent -- let alone cause a general collapse.

Proof, please.

Sorry, but you are vastly over estimating the ability of a sporadic 1,000 degree fire to weaken massive steel columns. This would take much longer than 1-2 hours. Much of the heat simply wicked away through the building's vast steel infrastructure -- as I pointed out in my critique

What's the heating rate of steel - for example, for how long after a given length of a steel beam (pick the dimensions) is heated to a given temperature will the opposite end reach the same temperature? You're a metallurgical expert (NOT!) - it should be trivial for you to give us the formula.

This is no doubt why no steel frame high rise building had ever collapsaed due to a fire -- before 911 -- nor has any since.

As always, you're forgetting the impact damage. You always focus on one or the other - claiming that impact alone couldn't have caused the collapse, or that fire alone couldn't have caused the collapsed. Both impact and fire played roles in the collapses. Why does this have to be explained to you time and again? You're one thick-headed dude.

The fireman agreed with me that any collapses due to fire on 911 would have been local and partial -- not global.

Sigh. What experience as a structural engineer does your fireman friend have?

The systematic global nature of the collapses point to the use of of explosives -- the only way to achieve gthis result.

WRONG.

I've asked you numerous times, as have others, how these explosives were planted (without anyone noticing), by whom, and how, such that the impacts of the planes didn't keep them from working. You have never answered any of those questions, ever. Why?

In the case of WTC 7 this was especially obvious.

WRONG.

It's too bad we can't build structures from the same material that comprises your head - they would be completely impervious to damage.

[W*GS]

Remember -- the only place in the WTC where the fire proofing material was not in place was in the impact zone. Everywhere else the steel was protected from fire. The protective material was rated at two - three hours. This means that no significant heating of these steel columns would have occurred between the moment of the plane impacts and the collapse.

Sigh.

The structural elements away (mainly at and above the impact and fire zones) didn't have their fire-resisting (not fireproofing) material damaged by the impacts, true. However, those structural members destroyed or damaged by the impacts, and those elements that did have their fire-resisting material removed or damaged were weakened by the fires, the remaining relatively undamaged elements had to absorb the loads from the damaged/destroyed ones. There are an endless number of simple physical experiments you can do that illustrate this principle very well.

The global collapse is therefore not explainable via the fires of 911.

What about the impacts plus the fires, gaffney? Why do you always ignore one or the other when it suits your whackitude? Geezus.

[theAPAOps5]

Once again Gaffney has been completely called out and once again he will respond with some diatribe that has no factual backing at all. Its pretty simple gaf, the force of impact from the jet easily can compromise any structure and fire proofing in the impact area. Then the ignition of jet fuel which burns really hot compared to other fuels has an easier time of compromising the steal beams. Thus creating a failure point and total collapse. The building was designed to collapse on itself in case of structural failure. If you want I can go and link actual factual data rather than interviews with supposed "firemen" who are probably volunteer types who didn't bother to learn the science of fire but act like pro's.