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: manuelram16
a reply to: dfnj2015
There is a report on how the building failure occurred, and it was a sandwich 'effect' also on the twin towers the structural steel was on the outer walls not the inside.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: FyreByrd
I've seen something like this before.
While steel does melt at a much higher temp that what burning jet fuel can produce, the steel does not have to be melted to become structurally-compromised.
Good video.
originally posted by: strongfp
originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: butcherguy
How long do you need to heat carbon steel at 2800 f to bend a beam
You don't need to even reach a temperature even close to that to bend a steel beam.
You can bend a 100,000 foot steel beam with only 500 degrees in a two inch portion of it.
originally posted by: xdriver14
The real issue as I see it, is as follows; Most of the jet fuel burned up on impact. It started fires in the offices, desks paper etc. Office furnishings do not burn very hot. The steel in those buildings was massive, the central columns were feet thick and many hundreds of feet tall. The amount of heat that the steel structure could absorb before it reaches a dangerous temperature is enormous.
Furthermore the damaged or weakened steel would be at or above the impact point, all the steel below that point was undamaged. There is zero chance the upper floors could fall through all those undamaged lower floors. Fire had nothing to do with the towers collapsing.
originally posted by: xdriver14
The real issue as I see it, is as follows; Most of the jet fuel burned up on impact. It started fires in the offices, desks paper etc. Office furnishings do not burn very hot. The steel in those buildings was massive, the central columns were feet thick and many hundreds of feet tall. The amount of heat that the steel structure could absorb before it reaches a dangerous temperature is enormous.
Furthermore the damaged or weakened steel would be at or above the impact point, all the steel below that point was undamaged. There is zero chance the upper floors could fall through all those undamaged lower floors. Fire had nothing to do with the towers collapsing.
originally posted by: errck
originally posted by: intrptr
originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: butcherguy
How long do you need to heat carbon steel at 2800 f to bend a beam
The trusses (with all the insulation blown off) began to sag under the weight, failed at the anchors.
Took :56 minutes.
Because NIST recreated this and nothing collapsed after 2hrs.
originally posted by: errck
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: FyreByrd
He uses his pinky to demonstrate how little force it takes to bend the 'plasticized' steel, now imagine the weight of ten acre floors of building pushing down on it.
Initiation of top down pancake collapse.
Problem with that , it happened at free fall speed. IMPOSSIBLE without help.
originally posted by: xdriver14
The real issue as I see it, is as follows; Most of the jet fuel burned up on impact. It started fires in the offices, desks paper etc. Office furnishings do not burn very hot. The steel in those buildings was massive, the central columns were feet thick and many hundreds of feet tall. The amount of heat that the steel structure could absorb before it reaches a dangerous temperature is enormous.
Furthermore the damaged or weakened steel would be at or above the impact point, all the steel below that point was undamaged. There is zero chance the upper floors could fall through all those undamaged lower floors. Fire had nothing to do with the towers collapsing.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
originally posted by: opethPA
It seems like common sense to me but Conspiracy Theorists get stuck on the "jet fuel cant melt steel" idea.
For a collapse to occur it doesn't need to melt steel, it only needs to weaken it enough to make a collapse possible.
Regardless, steel reinforced columns do not collapse at free-fall speed. If the building tipped over it would be believable.
It's doesn't matter anyway. Israel got exactly what it wanted.
google "9/11 purim children"
originally posted by: xdriver14
The real issue as I see it, is as follows; Most of the jet fuel burned up on impact. It started fires in the offices, desks paper etc. Office furnishings do not burn very hot. The steel in those buildings was massive, the central columns were feet thick and many hundreds of feet tall. The amount of heat that the steel structure could absorb before it reaches a dangerous temperature is enormous.
originally posted by: blackaspirin
originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
originally posted by: lordcomac
Doesn't explain the pools of liquid metal in the rubble like, though...
of course, it was all shipped to China long before anyone could sample anything and get any real answers.
Basic laws of thermodynamics explain melting metal...pressure and friction, along with the fire, can generate enough temperature to cause the molten metal.
Particularly if that metal is aluminum instead of steel. The entire facades of the Twin Towers were made of aluminum.
Per Occam's Razor, assuming it is steel instead of aluminum requires several more assumptions in order to explain the phenomena (thermite, etc.). If it was aluminum, there are no extra assumptions required, because jet fuel burns hot enough to melt aluminum.
So would the temperature of burning rubble fueled by ordinary office materials.
Conclusion? Unless we make unwarranted assumptions, the molten metal was aluminum caused by the burning jet fuel and ensuing office fires. If we aren't trying to 'create a conspiracy theory', then there's no reason to jump toward unwarranted assumptions to make it work.