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.
Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees -- only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.
Originally posted by elevatedone
a lot of good threads and infomation can be found here :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Good Luck
Originally posted by Huria86
I would of thought the explosion caused by the plane hitting and most of the gas catching on fire would bring temps of higher then 500. I mean you cook stuff in the oven for almost as high as that
Originally posted by Clandestine
I’m sure the initial explosion and fire was pretty dam hot, but was that prolonged?
I think not.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
The initial impact caused severe damage to a large percentage of the structural steel framing. It is entirely possible that even without the subsequent fires, that damage would have been enough to cause the collapses.
both of the impacts breached and damaged the core areas. This allowed the fire to travel rapidly up the building. This is clearly evident in the videos of the moments before the collapse.
The floor slabs in the area of the impact were ripped away. These slabs also contributed to the structural strength.
As different parts of the building heated up due to fire and others cooled, the affected parts of the structure expanded or contracted.
There is a difference between unrestrained expansion of steel and restrained expansion.
Even a “normal” office fire can release enough heat to soften structural steel. That is why they apply fireproofing to steel to insulate it from the affects of high temperature.
Originally posted by Bikereddie
Most of office furnishings etc are made flame retardant. They will not burn at low level heat sources. This is the law, not just in the UK, but also in the US. I know this for a fact because i actually test these things for flame retardency. I work as a textile flammability analyst for recognized governing boards.
Most office furnishings have self extinguishing chemical impregnated at source when manufactured.
Take a look at the WTC. How many pieces of furnishings can you see at the impact hole that were unburnt?
This leads me to say that any furnishings did not add to the heat source that " warped" the steel structure.
Originally posted by General Zapata
Originally posted by HowardRoark
The initial impact caused severe damage to a large percentage of the structural steel framing. It is entirely possible that even without the subsequent fires, that damage would have been enough to cause the collapses.
If this is true, then the WTC would have to be the single worst failure of structural engineering ever. It would take very, very dodgy engineering for this to happen. Very unlikely.
both of the impacts breached and damaged the core areas. This allowed the fire to travel rapidly up the building. This is clearly evident in the videos of the moments before the collapse.
listen to the mp3 recording of the firefighters. They say that the fire is localized to 2 or 3 floors ONLY, and that they could control it. This was just before the building gave way.
The floor slabs in the area of the impact were ripped away. These slabs also contributed to the structural strength.
incorrect. As a student of engineering, I was taught in first year structural that floor slabs in a building are classified as extra-structural fixtures. They should have no bearing, in a well designed building, on the building's overall structural integrity.
As different parts of the building heated up due to fire and others cooled, the affected parts of the structure expanded or contracted.
This is really grasping at straws. The coefficient of expansion of steel is indeed relatively high compared to other materials, but no where near enough to cause such drastic changes at so low a temperature. The steel would have melted LONG before it warped enough to sufficiently damage the structural integrity of the building. Railway tracks are spaced at a few centimeters apart for every mile or so of track. This shows you how little steel will expand in this case.
There is a difference between unrestrained expansion of steel and restrained expansion.
Expansion is not an exponential function. It is in fact somewhat logarithmic. If the heat doubles, the expansion will not double.
Originally posted by Bikereddie
Take another look at the WTC, how much unburnt paper did you see floating down to earth? The place was covered in it.
By the way, the link you posted was dead.
Originally posted by jimi
From what I have seen, the WTC destruction seems to be the first case of a high-rise building collapsing due to fire ever (unless someone can provide evidence disproving this statement). This link summarises some of the USAs worst skyscraper fires:
911research.wtc7.net...
Originally posted by HowardRoark
[quotes]Also, there is a difference between a steel column heated by a fire and a rail track in the sun.
There is a difference between unrestrained expansion of steel and restrained expansion.
Expansion is not an exponential function. It is in fact somewhat logarithmic. If the heat doubles, the expansion will not double.