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 Wolfpack 51
In a metallurgical investigation, in order for the structure to fall evenly, a unified heat source would be needed to weaken the support members evenly to a point that they would become elastic, unable to support the above weight.
Originally posted by Wolfpack 51At a precise moment the energy of the above weight would fall evenly and continue to the ground.
Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
This is not possible with the fuel that was present.
Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
Some members may have weakend, but not all of them to give the pancake fall that we witnessed. Without all members being close to the same measure of elasticity, the building would have not fallen evenly, nor to the ground.
Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
If bringing a building down of this size was as easy as igniting Kerosene on a floor with some weight above it, why do engineers go to school to study physics and load bearing technologies to do precise demolition work?
Originally posted by billybob
once steel cools, it regains it strength, and will be able to bear the same load as before it was heated(approx. the same load).
You falsely equated "modus of elasticity" to elasticity itself, that's the only problem here. Your long list of credentials doesn't impress me, especially when your actions don't seem to back it up.
Do you want to argue whether metals are isotropic or not, or can we skip that part?
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Originally posted by billybob
once steel cools, it regains it strength, and will be able to bear the same load as before it was heated(approx. the same load).
Not if it's buckled.
Even at room temperature, a buckled column won't support a load.
Originally posted by billybob
and the strength difference would be a function of force vectors, which would be a function of angular stress. ie. 180º bent to 90º would give fifty percent the original vector support. by the same token, a beam bent to .5º off the original axis, would lose that much strength in that direction(it would however, now ACCOMODATE that much of an increase in the direction perpendicular to the design spec's load bearing intention. this strength would not disappear, in other words, but rather be focused in a different direction)
Originally posted by billybob
wow! great site!
Look, I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer.
I am a Boilermaker, Shipbuilder, Blacksmith Forger and helper. Union. Now a contractor on military facilities. I build steel storage tanks for jet fuel. A few years ago, a typhoon blew through, and I got to watch a Mobil AST, with @ 1,000,000 gallons of diesel in it, get hit with lightning, the grounding failed, and the million gallons BLEW!!
Well, for a diesel fire that is. it simply caught fire, burned itself out after 4 days, blackened the steel. Catch that? One million gallons of diesel fuel, burned for 4 days, didn't melt squat. Tank, 1/4" steel, never melted.
Yet HUGE core I-beams, supporting the elevator and utility shafts, were VAPORISED at the WTC towers? Stop, I'll wet my britches laughing.
I've melted, welded, forged, bent, twisted, repaired sheared, punched, formed, plated, blasted and coated just about every metal you see used commonly in industry and construction, for over 32 years. I 've welded many a steel I-beam: purlin clips, joining plates, you name it.
I ask you plainly: you know the explosion you see after the second plane hits the tower? a_ht, what caused that?
Tell me you believe, like me, it was the JP-8 (yes, I work with jet fuel daily, too) contained in the jet's tanks, correct? Huge explosion, you say you were there that day? Your father? He see this huge fireball? What was it?
Because, if it was the kerosene (JP-8, acts just like diesel, you can put it right in your diesel tank, works great, low flash point of 140 deg) that did explode that way, that you state so assuredly melted steel, explain how it reconstituted itself after exploding, and put itself back inside the building, and THEN what?
Ran down 90 floors to melt the "uninsulated I-beams"? What? "Shook" it off by jet impact? Are you kiddin' me? When the jet hit, it did not even knock folks down in the building below!!! What nonsense, a_ht!!
Because I KNOW the dimensions of a 14,000 gallon fuel tank. About the size on one of the many offices on the floor hit. That's all, a_ht. The size of one office.
Yet, you would have me believe NOT my own eyes, that see an explosion of huge proportions caused by the impact of the jet plane, but rather a tale that says exploded fuel turned back into liquid form, and only
Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
The fact that there was no examination of the metal leaves open the actual cause of the collapse.
Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140)