It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: wmd_2008
Is there any context to those pictures of steel? Lol, what's your deal? This is like the 4th time in this thread where you either post a quote or picture with no context. There's a story behind those beams you posted and I'd like to read it
Wood has a greater tensile strength relative to steel – two times on a strength-to-weight basis – and has a greater compressive resistance strength than concrete
An intumescent is a substance that swells as a result of heat exposure, thus increasing in volume and decreasing in density. Intumescents are typically used in passive fire protection and, in the U.S., require listing and approval use and compliance in their installed configurations in order to comply with the law
I find it hard to believe the construction community and all those architects and engineers didn't think about fire when they built the buildings..
Or how fire reacts to the buildings when it does occur.
Seems like this is focused on 911, so in that regard can we use it to any other building? Thought no other building ever can compare to any of the towers on 911?
So this report takes what NIST had to say as gospel is seems and what they had to say was bunk science lol
No wonder you are all about this.
Sorry, seems like another company paid to further push the story nist wants out there.
After a major program of research and development in the UK by Edinburgh University, Sheffield University, BRE, CORUS, Imperial College, Arup Fire, FEDRA, et al, designers have the ability to analyse real structural response to fire.
We used computer modelling to predict the whole frame load carrying mechanisms in fire. These were catenary action in the beams and tensile membrane action in the slab supported by cooler edge beams and columns.
This lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amountof fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse.
Ya so stop posting these crazy list with crazy guidelines as to what can be compared to the wtc towers
Thanks for the 2 most posted photos ever for wtc 7, well SW corner damage link is dead but I know what you are getting at.
As for the one with smoke, that is not just wtc7.. You do know wtc 5 is right below that right and it was burning and smoking as well right?
Yes some of it is coming from 7, just not all of that smoke. Makes the picture look worse then it really was.
t is our view that the National Institute of Standards and
Technology’s (NIST) report into the events of 9-11 is a critically
important document for tall building design worldwide.
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Bedlam
No you're not picking up mass either as the floors fall. What weight was added to the building for this mass gain you speak of?
As each floor lets go under the impact and falls, its mass is added to the weight that's coming down. No weight need be added 'to the building'. One floor falling becomes two, then three until you have a huge amount of mass crashing down. The tiny bit that's lost as ejecta is trivial.