It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by diggs
Originally posted by Masisoar
Bingo, after the jet fuel pretty much was exhausted, there's not much else in the building that could cause an enriched flame hot enough to cause any major damage.
Does anybody know off-hand at what temp does skyscraper steel weakens at and how long it takes under that temp? What's it's melting point?
Also what did NTSB say how hot the fires were?
I doubt the fires were hot enough.
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Originally posted by Masisoar
Originally posted by bsbray11
And this is all assuming that the fires were hot enough or lasted long enough to do any significant damage, which is another assumption than has never been justified with any conclusive evidence.
[edit on 5-6-2006 by bsbray11]
Bingo, after the jet fuel pretty much was exhausted, there's not much else in the building that could cause an enriched flame hot enough to cause any major damage.
Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
Ahem, from the PM that no one likes because it attacks with facts..
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
There is also Penn and Teller's "BULL#" on 9/11, where they interview 2 fire fighters who state the same thing
[edit on 5-6-2006 by OneSidedCookie]
Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
I'm quoting the article. Unlike the CTs, I don't claim to be an expert on anything. But I'm hearing from guys who takes a #ing ASTROMY for buildings falling down than a structual engineer or fire fighters.
You have any proof of your claim? Any idiot can make statements.
Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
IF fire cannot BRING down the towers, why do they need to heatsink it?
Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Okay, prove it for yourself... Take a 3' long steel bar, place the end of it in a forge, wait five minutes and grab the end not in the forge... did you observe the third degree burns on your hands?
[edit on 5-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]
Originally posted by Xar Ke Zeth
Steel is good at conducting heat, but how fast can it conduct heat?
Take a welding torch to the end of a piece of steel. The end will become exceedingly hot and glow, and at the other end it doesn't seem to visibly change.
I doubt a building with steel would work any differently. If it did, the piece of steel being welded would have it's temperature rise equally, which obviously does not happen - otherwise welding wouldn't work.
So I would say the steel at the location of the exploding plane would be much hotter than the steel halfway down.
Originally posted by tuccy
Wouldn't each joint between the segments also hamper the heat conduct severly?
Originally posted by Slap NutsYour precious PM article leaves out ONE GLARING PROBLEM...
Interconnected steel is a GIANT heatsink. The steel would have transmitted the heat. This would have NOT allowed any section to reach the temperatures you suggest.
In this house we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics.
Originally posted by JIMC5499
I think that some of you need to get a refund on your Thermodynamics classes and books. Heat transfer is a function of cross-sectional area. The whole idea behind the structural steel shapes is to maximize strength while lowering weight and the amount of raw materials needed. The I-beams and C-channels also have a larger surface area than rectangular bars. This increased area would allow for a rapid build-up of heat in the section of the beam exposed to the heat source, while the reduced area of the beam's cross-section would slow the transmission of that heat along the beam.
Originally posted by JIMC5499
I'm getting sick and tired of people stating that no other steel structured buildings have collapsed from fire.
Originally posted by JIMC5499
... The vertical loads of the towers were designed to be carried by the center structure and the outer walls of the towers. ... All the fire had to do was to weaken a few points in an already overstressed structure for a collapse to occur.
Originally posted by JIMC5499Another thing to take into consideration was that the tower's structure was designed to take a static load, not a dynamic one. As the top sections of the tower started to fall they gathered a massive amount of kinetic energy which overloaded the structure beneath.
Originally posted by JIMC5499 The can will hold the brick with no problem. Pick the brick up 1 foot above the top of the can and drop it. What happens to the can?
Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
You're a dumbass. The video already counters these stupid claims.